43 existence of these intimidating acts and persecution of the García Prieto family [was] sustained” (supra para. 132).101 143. In addition to the above, the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defense of Human Rights issued a report with respect to the case on June 22, 2005. The report refers to the existence of the harassment of and threats against some members of the García Prieto Giralt family and describes the events in detail (supra para. 86). 144. Moreover, the Court notes that on June 20, 1997, in response to the threats and harassment directed toward the García Prieto Giralt family, the Inter-American Commission adopted precautionary measures (supra note 9), and, subsequently, requested that the Court adopt provisional measures, which were ordered by the Tribunal (supra para. 13 and 14). Currently, some members of the García Prieto Giralt family are protected by these measures (supra para. 13 and 14). On this point, the Tribunal observes that the State, following the adoption of the precautionary measures, ordered that several agents of the PNC provide protection to the beneficiaries of the measures, as a way of complying with the measures. 145. For all of the above reasons, it has been effectively demonstrated the José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto have been the object of threats and harassment (supra para. 139). As a result, the Court finds that the State’s argument that the alleged “threats and intimidating acts have been unfounded without an evidentiary basis” is inadmissible. 146. Although this Tribunal deems that the existence of the threats and harassment has been proven, the Tribunal does not find sufficient elements that would allow it to attribute responsibility to the State for a failure to respect the personal integrity of the mentioned individuals. 147. Nonetheless, with respect to the obligation to guarantee the right recognized in Article 5(1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that the State must undertake a complete and effective investigation in accordance with its domestic legislation. 148. The Court must analyze whether the State has fulfilled its duty to effectively guarantee the personal integrity of José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto as required by Article 1(1) of the Convention. This analysis will be undertaken in the following section, taking into account the temporal jurisdiction of this Tribunal. b) Investigations into the threats and harassment 149. In conformity with the criteria established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, the Court will analyze whether the investigation into the threats and harassment which occurred within the temporal jurisdiction of the Court in the case sub judice has been undertaken in conformity with the demands of the obligation to guarantee rights contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention. Under these parameters, the Court exercises its jurisdiction in order to examine whether the 101 Cf. Order of August 15, 2000, supra note 53.