185. The Court also takes into account that many of these facts were reported to the competent authorities (supra para. 97) and, in addition, it emphasizes that as from October 18, 2002, the Commission requested precautionary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui,226 and that on November 27, 2002, the Court ordered provisional measures in his favor, at the request of the Commission (supra para. 31). It is therefore reasonable to assume that at the time when several of the acts of harassment and threats occurred, the State was fully aware of the risks facing Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, both as a result of his complaints and of the measures of protection requested and ordered at the domestic level, 227 and by virtue of the precautionary and provisional measures ordered.228 Although, in regard to some of those facts,229 the record contains no documentary evidence to substantiate the involvement of State agents in these alleged acts, the State did not dispute that such acts had occurred nor did it provide sufficient and satisfactory explanations regarding the effectiveness of measures of protection that it should have taken in the context of the provisional measures. As to compliance with the measures of protection ordered by the Court, it is clear from the evidence furnished by the State that several prosecutors’ reports mention that the provisional measures ordered in favor of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui were not being implemented by the State 230. In this regard, it should be recalled that the State has not demonstrated that it took sufficient and effective actions to prevent the threats and harassment against Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, nor has it conducted a serious and exhaustive investigation of those facts (infra paras. 232 to 240). 186. Moreover, as indicated previously, between the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003, Luis Uzcátegui often had to move house and travel outside the State of Falcón, due to the harassment and threats received (supra para. 95). 187. In this regard, in addition to the situation of risk facing Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, which was known to the State, and the obvious lack of protection for him, the events occurred in a context of frequent acts of harassment, threats, arbitrary arrests, intimidation and extrajudicial executions by police officers, particularly at the state and 226 Cf. Matter of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui and relatives regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of November 27, 2002, Having Seen 2.d. 227 In this case, six incidents were presented of alleged threats and harassment against Luis Enrique Uzcátegui which had allegedly taken place between January 2001 and March 2004: Incidents of January 6, 2001, July 20, 2001, November 13, 2002, November 14, 2002, January 25,2003 and March 1, 2004. The representatives alleged that a number of alleged threats and harassment took place against Luis Enrique Uzcátegui on March 15, 2001, April 13, 2002 and June 24, 2010, which do not form part of the factual framework of this case. 228 Cf. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui and relatives regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of November 27, 2002, considering paragraph 5) and Orders of February 20, 2003, December 2, 2003 and May 4, 2004, which maintained these measures. This regard, the Court has stated that, when faced with situations of risk, the obligation to investigate the facts “being stricter, requires prompt and immediate action by the State bodies ordering timely and necessary measures to determine those responsible for the threats and crimes that have occurred in the same context.” See also Case Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 101 and Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 124. 229 Events of January 6, July 20, 2001; November 13 and 14, 2002; and March 1, 2004. 230 Cf. inter alia, brief of the Senior Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of the State of Falcón addressed to the Fifth Judge of the Judicial District of the State of Falcón of January 30, 2003 (Evidence file, volume 9, pages 4317 and 4318), and brief of the Senior Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of the State of Falcón addressed to Vice-The Attorney General of February 25, 2003 (Evidence file, volume 9, pages 4370 and 4371). 46