7 [...] November 11, 2009.”9 The Court does not have detailed information concerning this threat, or supporting documentation to substantiate these alleged facts in the procedure of monitoring compliance. To the contrary, the Court observes that two months after the alleged threat, during the public hearing of January 9, 2010 (supra thirteenth considering paragraph), convened to hear the arguments of the parties on the possible persistence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in order to assess the need to maintain the measures in force, the representatives not only failed to refer to this alleged threat, but stated that Mrs. Parra’s “most recent situation denoting risk was the perception that her communications were being intercepted. And this […] was [approximately] five years ago,” and that “recently […] she has not been followed, threatened or received telephone calls.” 19. Moreover, regarding the assessment of the level of risk and degree of threat that the State was requested to make, the Court noted in its last Order that Colombia had made preparation of the assessment conditional on the beneficiary’s prior agreement to participate in the Witness Protection Program and that, despite the Court’s repeated requests that the State submit the aforementioned report without making it conditional on this prior participation by the beneficiary, the State had not complied with the Court’s request. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that the most recent risk and threat assessments of the beneficiary’s situation prepared by the protection system provided by the Ministry of Justice and the Interior, which she wishes to retain, show an “ordinary” level of risk.   20. Additionally, the Court recalls that despite some disagreements among the parties, to date the State has maintained the measures of protection provided to Mrs. Parra in compliance with the orders of the Court’s and has complied, although irregularly, with its duty to provide information on the measures taken to implement these provisional measures. Also, even though it had asked that the provisional measures be lifted, Colombia has expressed its commitment to offer protective measures should new threats materialize (supra ninth considering paragraph). 21. Regarding the obligation to investigate the reported facts that gave rise to these measures, Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. Consequently, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State has a special obligation to ensure the rights of people in situations of risk and must expedite the investigations necessary to elucidate the facts and, if appropriate, punish those responsible.10 In conducting this investigation, the State in question must make every effort to determine all the facts surrounding the threat and how they were manifested; to determine whether there is a pattern of threats against the beneficiary or the group or entity to which he or she belongs; to determine the object or purpose of the threat, and to determine those responsible for the threat and, if appropriate, punish them. 9 The Court was provided with this information in a brief from the representatives dated May 13, 2010, in the context of the procedure of monitoring compliance with the judgment handed down in this case, and mentioned briefly as a fact that the State had not investigated in the representatives’ brief of June 30, 2010, submitted during the processing of these provisional measures. 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures With regard to Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, third considering paragraph; Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional measures with regard to the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, seventy-eighth considering paragraph, and Case of Eloisa Barrios et al, supra note 2, twenty-fourth considering paragraph.