16 22. Regarding the facts alleged by the Commission concerning the State’s failure to advance in its investigations into the alleged death threats, the Court emphasizes that, pursuant to its jurisprudence, entering into an analysis of the effectiveness of the State’s compliance with its obligation to investigate properly corresponds to an examination of the case on the merits.16 The Court therefore rejects this claim. 23. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that from the information presented by the Commission it can conclude that the requirements of Article 63(2) of the Convention and Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure have not been met. Thus, the present request for provisional measures brought by the Inter-American Commission must be denied. 24. Notwithstanding this determination, the Court reminds the parties that States are under a constant and permanent duty to fulfill the general obligations that correspond to them under Article 1(1) of the Convention, respecting the rights and freedoms recognized therein and guaranteeing their free and full exercise to all persons under their jurisdiction.17 In this regard, States have the particular obligation to protect those persons who work in non-governmental organizations, to provide effective and adequate guarantees to human rights defenders so that they may freely carry out their activities, and to avoid actions that limit or impede such work. Human rights advocacy constitutes a positive and complementary contribution to the State’s own efforts as guarantor of the rights of all persons under its jurisdiction.18 Accordingly, the prevalence of human rights in a democratic state depends largely on the respect and freedom afforded to these defenders in their work.19 25. The Court also reiterates its comments in other cases in the sense that when public authorities rule on matters of public concern, they become subject “to certain limitations in that they must state in a reasonable, though not necessarily exhaustive way, the facts on which they based their opinions and they should do so with an even greater diligence than that owed by individuals due to the prestige of their office, their reach, and the possible effects that expressing their opinions can have on certain segments of the population.” In this regard the Court also noted that public officials al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, Considering clause fifteen; and, Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July, 9, 2010, Considering clause thirty-five. 16 Cf. Case of La Pica, supra note 15, Considering clause twenty-three; Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering clause twenty-seven; and, Matter of Wong Ho Wing, supra note 12, Considering clause nine. 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering clause three; Case of Belfort Istúriz et al., supra note 6, Considering clause twenty-one; and, Matter of Four Ngöbe Indigenous Communities and its Members, supra note 14, Considering clause eighteen. 18 Cf. Case of La Pica, supra note 15, Considering clause fourteen; Case of the Caracazo, supra note 6, Considering clause seven; and, Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, supra note 8, Considering clause seventeen. 19 Cf. Case of Lysias Fleury. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 7, 2003, Considering clause five. See also Resolution 2412 (XXXVIII-O/08) of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States; and Resolution 1842 (XXXII-O/02) of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.