information to connect that investigation to acts of harassment or threats against the beneficiary. Consequently, the Tribunal does not have evidence that would allow it to connect the existence of that investigation to the maintenance of the provisional measures. 26. Regarding this, the Court must take into account that according to the Preamble of the American Convention, international protection in the form of a convention “reinforces or complements the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States”. Therefore, should it be confirmed that the State in question has put in place effective protective mechanisms or actions for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Tribunal could decide to rescind the provisional measures, placing the burden of the obligation to protect on the party primarily responsible, that is, the State.13 Should the provisional measures be rescinded by the Court for this reason, the State would have the obligation, pursuant to its duty to guarantee human rights, to maintain the protective measures it has adopted for as long as the circumstances require14 and where appropriate. In this regard, the Court notes that in its request for the rescission of these provisional measures, the State notes that the 49th Plenipotentiary National Public Prosecutor’s Office will still be assigned to ensure the effective compliance with the protective measure (supra Considering 17). 27. Moreover, the arguments of the representatives and of the Commission as to the maintenance of the provisional measures were based on the lack of progress made in the investigation of the domestic criminal proceedings and the risk that it may entail for the beneficiary (supra Considering 18 and 19). 28. Regarding the obligation to investigate the facts reported that gave rise to these measures, Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes States Parties’ general obligations to respect the rights and liberties recognized in the treaty and to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms to all persons subject to its jurisdiction. In consequence, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is specially obliged to guarantee the rights of the people in situation of risk and must expedite the investigation necessary to clear up the facts and, where applicable, punish those responsible.15 For this investigation, the State in question must make its best effort to establish all the facts surrounding the threat, as well as the way in which the threat was carried out; to determine whether there is a pattern of threats toward the beneficiary or the group or entity to which she belongs; to determine the purpose or goal of the threat; and to determine who is responsible for the threat and, if applicable, punish them.16 29. The Tribunal reiterates that the State’s alleged lack of investigation does not per se constitute a circumstance of extreme gravity and urgency that would merit the maintenance of the provisional measures. Also, the duty to investigate can at times require a considerable amount of time, during which the threat or risk may not necessarily be 13 Cf. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 20, 2003, Considering 13, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra footnote 6, Considering 16. 14 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra footnote 6, Considering 16. 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering 3, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra footnote 6, Considering 21. 16 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra footnote 6, Considering 21. 10