paragraphs 27 to 30), information that was not contested by the representatives or the Commission. 39. The Court notes that the case related to these measures was submitted to the Court on July 12, 2012, and that in said case, Messrs. Antonio Sensión Berson Gelin and William Medina Ferreras were considered to be alleged victims. 40. As to the precautionary nature of the measures regarding the merits of the case, the Inter-American Commission made considerations on this matter (supra considering paragraph 35). The Court takes note of that expressed by the Commission, though it notes that from said considerations, it cannot be concluded the persistence of a situation of gravity and urgency that may cause irreparable damage. 41. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers it appropriate to order the rescission of the provisional measures with regard to Messrs. Antonio Sensión, Berson Gelin, and William Medina Ferreras, since the requirements stipulated in Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 27 of the Rules of Procedure are not present. * 42. Without detriment to the decision made by this Court, it recalls that States have the permanent and constant duty of complying with the general obligations according to Article 1(1) of the Convention, that is, to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and ensure to all persons subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms13. In consequence, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is specially obliged to guarantee the rights of the people in situations of risk and must expedite the investigation necessary to shed light on the facts and, if applicable, punish the responsible14. 43. The decision made by this Court does not imply, in any way, a prejudgment of the merits of the case submitted to its attention. In this respect, the Court deems necessary to emphasize that the decision regarding the provisional measures does not imply a decision on the merits of the existing controversy between the beneficiaries and the State, nor does it prejudge the State’s responsibility for the reported facts or the lack thereof15. When deciding on provisional measures, the Court is only exercising its mandate according to the Convention, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency that require measures of protection in order to avoid irreparable damage to persons.16 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodriguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1998, third considering paragraph, and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, supra note 1, twentyfourth considering paragraph. 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, third considering paragraph, and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, twenty-seventh considering paragraph. 15 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the President of the Court of July 13, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of L.M. Provisional Measures regarding Paraguay. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, twenty-second considering paragraph. 16 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, seventh considering paragraph. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 2, 2010, sixteenth considering paragraph. 11