9 13. Time and time again this Court has held that the duty to investigate must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.5 14. Prima facie a situation of “extreme gravity and urgency” persists that warrants continuation of the provisional measures adopted on behalf of Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio and Mrs. Karen Fischer in the Orders of June 4, 1995, September 19, 1995, February 1, 1996, September 10, 1996, June 19, 1998, November 27, 1998, September 30, 1999, and September 5, 2001. 15. Although the provisional measures ordered for Mr. Abraham Méndez García were lifted in the Order of June 19, 1998 (supra ‘Having Seen’ 7), this Court has assessed the statement he made before it, wherein he stated that as Prosecutor in the Carpio case, he was the target of threats and attempts on his life that ultimately forced him to leave the country together with his family. Further, now that Mr. Méndez García and his family have returned to Guatemala, he fears for his safety and that of his family because he has testified before this Court (supra ‘Having Seen’ 34). The representatives, too, fear for the safety of Mr. Méndez García and his family (supra ‘Having Seen’ 36). This Court therefore considers that Mr. Méndez García and his family are, prima facie, in a situation “of extreme gravity and urgency.” 16. Young Rodrigo and Daniela Carpio Fischer have been affected by the extreme danger in which their mother, Mrs. Karen Fischer, lives, so much so that they have had to leave the country and now live outside Guatemala. Mrs. Fischer fears for the safety of her children, because of the possibility of reprisals for the testimony she gave before this Court (supra ‘Having Seen’ 33). The representatives also fear for the children’s safety (supra ‘Having Seen’ 36). This Court therefore considers that should these two persons return to the country, theirs would be a situation “of extreme gravity and urgency.” 17. Messrs. Jorge and Rodrigo Carpio Arrivillaga are in danger of ,possible reprisals that might be taken because of the testimony given by Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio, who fears for her two sons’ safety (supra ‘Having Seen’ 32). The representatives also fear for the safety of her two sons (supra ‘Having Seen’ 36). This Court therefore considers that prima facie the above-named persons are in a situation “of extreme gravity and urgency.” 18. As an essential element of its duty to protect, the State must immediately adopt the measures necessary to effectively ensure protection of the life and the integrity of the person of Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio, Mrs. Karen Fischer, Messrs. Jorge and Rodrigo Carpio Arrivillaga, Abraham Méndez García, the latter’s wife and children, and young Rodrigo and Daniela Carpio Fischer, should they return to the country. 19. In this connection the Court has previously held that: [t]he right to life is a fundamental human right, and the exercise of this right is essential for the exercise of all other human rights. If it is not respected, all rights lack meaning. Owing to the fundamental nature of the right to life, restrictive approaches to it are inadmissible. In essence, the fundamental right to life includes not only the right of 5 Cf., inter alia, Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, par. 112; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, par. 144; and Case of Bámaca-Velázquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, par. 212.