notes that, more than eighteen months after its last Order. the State has still not submitted the specific, detailed and complete information requested by the Court in its Order, regarding new measures of protection and the risk assessments that should have been carried out for the beneficiaries. The Court stresses that the latter information has been requested in the last three Orders issued by the Court, without the State having responded until now to this request. This has unfavorably affected this Court’s ability to adequately asses the implementation of these measures and Venezuela’s compliance with its obligations and, indeed, its possibility of addressing requests from the State itself regarding the maintenance or lifting of the present measures with respect to certain beneficiaries (supra Considering paras. 15 and 28). 60. This Court recalls that the States Parties to the Convention, having accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, have the duty to fulfill their obligations as established by the Court. This obligation also means that the State has a duty to report to the Court on the measures adopted in compliance with the Court’s decisions 34. The duty to report is an obligation which, to ensure effective compliance, requires the formal presentation to the Court, within the stipulated timeframe, of a document containing specific, true, current and detailed information on the issues regarding which the State has this obligation 35. Timely observance of the State’s obligation to show the Court how it is complying with each of the points addressed in the order is essential to assess the status of compliance with the provisional measures overall. 36 61. Taking into account the request of the representatives and of the Commission (supra Considering paras. 37 and 38), this Court considers it timely and necessary to summon a public hearing to receive up-to-date and detailed information from the State, as well as the observations of the representatives and of the Commission, concerning the implementation of the measures. The purpose of that hearing shall be to assess the effectiveness of the measures adopted by the State based on this Order, and to follow up on the agreements reached with the beneficiaries and on the information that the State is required to submit, pursuant to Operative paragraph 5, infra, under the terms of Considering paras. 17, 30, 50, 52, 53, 54 and 56. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the authority granted by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 27 and 31 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, DECLARES THAT: 1. The deaths of Messrs. Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios, which occurred on June 9 and December 15, 2012, respectively, demonstrate the State’s failure to comply with the provisional measures ordered, contrary to the provisions established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 34 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Supervision of Judgment. Order of the Court of 17 of November 2004, Considering para. 7, and Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 5, 2011, Considering para. 18. 35 Cf. Matter Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of December 2, 2003, Considering para. duodecimo, and Matter Alvarado Reyes et al., Considering para. 25. 36 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, Considering para. 5, and Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Order of the Court of July 5, 2011, Considering para. 18. 18