guarantee human rights, and its duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention, to maintain the measures of protection that it has adopted and that the Court considered pertinent, and to adopt all those that become necessary subsequently, for as long as the circumstances warrant this. 16 55. The Court observes that, in this matter, the State has made significant efforts to respond to the situation of the members of the humanitarian zones and biodiversity zones mentioned in this Order since the provisional measures in their favor were ordered, and that it has adopted different tangible and other measures to this end, of both an individual and a collective nature. In particular, the Court underlines that the Constitutional Court of Colombia has also ordered measures of protection that cover the beneficiaries of these measures. Furthermore, the Court appreciates the State’s compliance with its obligation to provide information periodically on the actions it has taken to implement the provisional measures, as well as the corresponding observations of both the representatives and the Inter-American Commission. 56. Based on all the above, and owing to the specific characteristics of this matter, and in the understanding that the Constitutional Court of Colombia will continue monitoring compliance with its order to protect the communities of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó river basins, and that all the other pertinent authorities will continue adopting the series of measures required to respond to the situation of risk faced by the members of the humanitarian zones of Nueva Esperanza, Pueblo Nuevo, Caño Claro and El Tesoro, and of the five biodiversity zones known as Erasmo Sierra, Enrique Petro, Familia Tuberquia, Ligia María Chaverra and Efrén Romaña, members of the communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, pursuant to the Preamble of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Court finds it in order to lift these provisional measures. Nevertheless, as it has already recalled in this Order, the Court notes that significant elements of risk still exist for the members of these communities. Therefore, it should be repeated that Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention establish the general obligations of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the full and free exercise of those rights and freedoms, under all circumstances, and to adopt the provisions of domestic law, of both a legislative or any other nature, that are necessary to this end. In this regard, despite the lifting of the provisional measures ordered by this Court, the State retains the special obligation to ensure the rights of these persons through the domestic mechanisms that exist to this end. 17 Furthermore, the lifting of these measures does not preclude that, if 16 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of October 25, 2012, twenty-fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, twentieth considering paragraph. The implications of the principle of subsidiarity were underlined in the Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al v. Peru, and in the Case of the Massacres of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, when the Court recalled that: “the State is the main guarantor of the human rights of the individual, so that, if an act occurs that violates those rights, it is the State itself that has the obligation to resolve the matter at the domestic level and to make reparation, before having to respond before international instances such as the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, which derives from the subsidiary nature of the international proceedings in relation to the national systems to ensure human rights. The domestic courts and State organs have the obligation to ensure the implementation of the American Convention at the domestic level.” Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012 Series C No. 259, para. 142. 17 Cf. Case of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, eighteenth considering paragraph, and Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 23, 2012, twenty-first considering paragraph. 24