2011 and 2012. He stated that, in 2012, the threats alluded to his wife’s situation of vulnerability (supra considering paragraph 14). However, the Court observes that, in the information provided by Mr. Méndez concerning incidents association with a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in 2012, there are no details regarding the circumstances of time, means and place that would allow the Court to reach a conclusion on the requirement of extreme gravity in order to maintain the provisional measures. In particular, no explanation was provided as to the exact nature of the threats received, in what way his wife’s vulnerability was referred to, or other more precise information that would permit a more thorough analysis of the situation of his family group. 29. Regarding the Carpio Arrivillaga family, the Court observes that, since the issue of the Court’s last order, no incident has been recorded that would jeopardize the personal integrity or life of the beneficiaries. 30. However, the Court reiterates13 that a supposed lack of investigation by the State does not necessarily constitute a circumstance of extreme gravity and urgency that warrants maintaining the provisional measures. In addition, at times, the obligation to investigate may continue over a considerable period of time, during which the threat or risk does not necessarily remain extreme and urgent. This Court has also indicated that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings concerning the events that gave rise to the provisional measures corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case.14 In brief, non-compliance with the obligation to investigate is not per se a sufficient reason to maintain the provisional measures. 31. In addition, the Court observes that, in recent years, it has not received consistent, detailed and well-founded information on specific situations of risk to the beneficiaries, and it considers that the hypothetical risk of threats against them owing to their participation in the domestic criminal proceedings, together with the failure to clarify the events that gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures in the instant case is insufficient to conclude that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists that could result in irreparable damage to the beneficiaries. 32. Based on all the above, as well as the fact that these provisional measures have been in force for 17 years, the Court considers it pertinent to lift the provisional measures granted in favor of the beneficiaries, taking into account that the Court has not been informed of any specific and clear elements relating to them that could be linked to the requirements for their continuation. 33. Regarding the obligation to investigate the denounced facts that resulted in these measures, Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all 13 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, twenty-fourth considering paragraph; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, sixteenth considering paragraph, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2011, twenty-second considering paragraph. 14 Cf. Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional measures with regard to the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, twenty-ninth considering paragraph, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2011, twenty-second considering paragraph. 11