lifting or modification of the provisional measures ordered, it must present sufficient evidence and arguments to allow the Court to assess that the risk or threat no longer meets the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency to prevent irreparable damage. At the same time, the beneficiaries’ and the Commission’s burden of proof will increase over time and if new threats do not arise. The fact that there are no new threats may indeed be due precisely to the effectiveness of the protection provided or the deterrence caused by the Court’s order. Nevertheless, the Court has found that the passage of a reasonable period of time without threats or intimidations, in addition to the lack of imminent risk, can lead to the lifting of the provisional measures.9 28. In turn, the Court must also bear in mind that, in accordance with the Preamble to the American Convention, international protection under the Convention is “reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.” Therefore, if it is proven that the State concerned has taken protective actions or put protective mechanisms in place that were effective for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Court could decide to lift the provisional measures or reduce the number of beneficiaries thereof, placing the obligation of protection upon its primary responsible party, that is, the State. 10 Should the number of beneficiaries of the provisional measures be reduced or should the measures be lifted by the Court for this reason, it is the State’s obligation to guarantee human rights, maintain the protective measures that it had adopted and that the Court considered effective, for as long as the circumstances merit. 29. In this regard, and bearing in mind the foregoing, the Court observes that the representatives reported that 11 beneficiaries are no longer part of the Tlachinollan organization (supra considering paragraph 19). With regard to these persons, the Court decides to lift the provisional measures with respect to them, as there have been no reports that verify the requirements for leaving the measures in place. 30. Similarly, with regard to Raúl Lucas Lucía’s and Manuel Ponce Rosas’ next of kin, the Court has not received information since the adoption of the provisional measures in April 2009 to indicate that they are in a situation of risk (supra considering paragraphs 16 and 25). Furthermore, the State has reported on the actions taken in the investigation into the disappearance and death of Raúl Lucas Lucía and Manuel Ponce Rosas (supra considering paragraph 11). In view of the lack of information on recent facts linked to the contentious case of Fernández Ortega et al., the Court decides to lift the provisional measures benefiting those individuals. 31. The Inter-American Court also takes note of the State’s initiative to promote the adoption of domestic protective measures. In regard to the lifting of the protective measures regarding these persons, the Court recalls that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the member States’ general obligations to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein, and to guarantee their free and full exercise for any person subject to its jurisdiction. Consequently, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is specially obligated to guarantee the rights of persons in situations of risk and must move forward with the investigations necessary to clarify 9 Cf. Matter of Gallardo Rodríguez. Provisional Measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 11, 2007, eleventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. supra footnote 7, twentieth considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 20, 2003, thirteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. supra footnote 7, twenty-first considering paragraph. 11