12 provisional measures in the absence of specific facts leading to consistent conclusions concerning the said effects of that context in the specific matter.21 To the contrary, on the same occasion, the Court found that there had been specific acts of intimidation and threat against the representative Emilia González Tercero that, added to the said context, could constitute prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, for which it was necessary to prevent irreparable damage to her rights and, on this basis, ordered the adoption of provisional measures in her favor.22 22. On the present occasion, the Court reiterates its previous findings in the sense that, from the information provided, it is not possible to conclude that the alleged climate of harassment against human rights defenders constitutes per se a basis for granting provisional measures in favor of the representatives. The Court observes that the information presented does not reveal that any specific acts have occurred against the proposed beneficiaries, representatives of the beneficiaries, that could constitute the effects of this alleged context. 23. Consequently, the Court agrees with its President in observing that prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that could give rise to irreparable harm to the rights of the representatives in this matter does not exist. Consequently, the Court ratifies the President’s decision and does not find the request to expand the provisional measures to the representatives admissible at this time. 24. Notwithstanding the above, the Court considers it appropriate to reiterate that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to ensure their free and full exercise to all people subject to their jurisdiction. These obligations apply not only in relation to the powers of the State, but also to the acts of third parties.23 25. The Court also reiterates that the State has the particular obligation to protect those persons who work in non-governmental organizations, as well as other groups or individuals who work in the defense of human rights, because their labor constitutes a positive and complementary contribution to the State’s own efforts as guarantor of the rights of all persons under its jurisdiction.24 III. Regarding the request for a hearing in this matter 26. The Court observes that, on four occasions,25 the representatives have requested a public hearing in this matter, because they consider that the State has not taken specific and effective measures to find the beneficiaries who are allegedly disappeared since December 29, 2009; that the State has taken “no action” to protect the next of kin who are beneficiaries as required in the Court’s Order of November 26, 2010, and that the State’s response is not commensurate with the gravity and urgency of the situation in this matter. 21 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 7, sixty-third and sixty-fourth considering paragraphs. 22 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 7, sixty-fifth and sixty-sixth considering paragraphs. 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of January 15, 1988, third considering paragraph; Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra note 3, twenty-fifth considering paragraph, and Matter of María Lourdes Afiuni. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 2, 2011, twelfth considering paragraph. 24 Cf. Case of the Monagas Judicial Detention Center (“La Pica”). Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 9, 2006, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Colombian Jurists Commission. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 25, 2010, twenty-fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 7, sixty-eighth considering paragraph. 25 The representatives requested that a hearing be convened in briefs of November 22, 2010, and January 25, March 30 and May 6, 2011.