3 3. To request the State of Guatemala to include in its next report, detailed information on the security and protection measures being taken for Mrs. Marta Elena Arrivillaga de Carpio and Mrs. Karen Fischer de Carpio and on the measures being taken to investigate the threats made against the two women and what implications the decision to set aside case No. 1011-97 had for these measures. 11. The reports submitted by the State between October 2001 and December 2003 where, in response to the September 5, 2001 Order of the Court (supra ‘Having Seen’ 10), it reported on the measures taken on behalf of Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio and Mrs. Karen Fischer.1 12. The observations to the State’s reports, submitted by the Inter-American Commission in the period from October 2001 and January 2004, wherein it reported on compliance and noncompliance with the operative paragraphs of the September 5, 2001 Order for provisional measures (supra ‘Having Seen’ 10). 13. The November 25, 2003 Order of the Court that amended, inter alia, Article 25(6) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. That article authorized the beneficiaries of provisional measures or urgent measures to “address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court.” 14. The State’s December 29, 2003 report wherein it stated that it continued to provide security to the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, through the National Police Force and the Ministry of the Interior. 15. The comments on the State’s December 29, 2003 report, presented by the representatives of the beneficiaries on January 30, 2004, wherein they pointed out, inter alia, “that in recent months [Mrs. Karen Fischer] ha[d] been ‘harassed’ by the Public Ministry.” The representatives stated further that the situation they described “ha[d] even caused her [Mrs. Karen Fischer] to prefer to stay inside her home for fear that her life or the integrity of her person might be in danger.” 16. The comments on the State’s December 29, 2003 report, submitted by the Inter-American Commission on February 17, 2004, wherein it stated, inter alia, that Mrs. Karen Fischer had been the target of “a number of acts of harassment” and had, “since [….] January 14, 2004, been receiving threatening phone calls from different people with male voices […].” The Commission stated further that “while the threats […] made against Mrs. Karen Fis[c]her [were] unrelated to the facts that led to the order of provisional measures, they [did] endanger her life and the integrity of her person.” 17. The note from the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) dated February 19, 2004 where, following instructions from the President, it asked the State to submit, by no later than March 5, 2004, a report on the measures it had 1 Both in the application in the Matter of Carpio-Nicolle et al. and in its final list of witnesses, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights gave “Fisher” as this person’s surname. Therefore, the May 26, 2004 Order of the President wherein he convened the public hearing in the present case assumed the name given in the brief of application to be the correct one. However, a copy of the witness’ passport supplied at the time of the public hearing on July 5 and 6, 2004, at the seat of the Court, showed her name to be “Fischer.” The name shown on the passport will be presumed to be the correct name.