11 the facts leading to the provisional measures as a preventive action and as a guarantee for the non-repetition thereof. 36. That the Court has pointed out that an alleged failure to investigate by a State does not necessarily, in itself, amount to a circumstance of extreme gravity and urgency justifying that provisional measures be maintained6. With respect to the foregoing, when a situation of extreme gravity and urgency was evidenced, the Court ordered the facts wherefrom it arose to be investigated. However, the violations to the Convention that may derive from the alleged lack of effectiveness in the investigations must be considered in the respective contentious case and not in the framework of the provisional measures,7 unless the failure to investigate be clearly linked to an extreme peril for life and personal integrity. * * * 37. That given the lack of information about the extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to life and personal integrity, it proceeds to lift the provisional measures adopted in the instant matter. 38. That the Tribunal warns that lifting the instant provisional measures does not mean that the State has fully complied with Orders issued by the Court in the context of such measures. 39. That independently of whether the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal in the instant matter are in force or not, the State has the constant and permanent duty to comply with the general obligations that derivate from Article 1(1) of the Convention to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise thereof8. Similarly, the Court recalls that the press should not be subject to any illegal or arbitrary restriction that affects freedom of searching, receiving and diffusing information. THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, In exercise of its authority under Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of its own Rules of Procedure, 6 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, considering clause number Four. Matter of Pilar Noriega. Provisional Measures regarding the United Mexican States. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, considering clause Number 14, and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 3, 2008, considering clause number Seven. 7 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3 2007, considering clause sixteen. 8 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, considering clause number three; Matter of Urso Branco Prison, supra note 2, considering clause number nineteen, and Matter Carlos Nieto Palma, supra note 2, considering clause number three.