9 26. In relation to the other proceedings instituted as a result of the attacks suffered by Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza, the Court notes that three of them are closed, specifically those related to the facts that occurred on August 30, 2004; June 1, 2005 and September 15, 2005. Regarding the other proceeding, related to the incident of March 13, 2004, there is no updated information (supra Considering clauses 19, 21 and 23). 27. Regarding said investigations, it is appropriate to recall that Article 1(1) of the Convention embodies the general duty of States Parties to respect the rights and liberties recognized in said treaty and to ensure to all persons subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 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 shed light on the facts, followed by the consequences established by the appropriate legislation. For such investigation, the State in question must make its best efforts to determine all the facts surrounded the threat and how they were expressed; to determine whether there exist a pattern of threats against the beneficiary or the group or entity to which he belong; to determine the purpose or end of the threat and to determine who are responsible for the threat and, if applicable, punish them.6 Now, the Tribunal has previously mentioned that the alleged lack of investigation from the State does not constitute, per se, circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency that calls for the continuance of provisional measures. In addition, the duty to investigate, sometimes, may extend in time, during which the threat or risk may not necessarily be extreme or urgent. Finally, this Court has stated that the analysis of effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings in relation to the facts that lead to the provisional measures correspond to the examination of the merits of the case. In sum, the failure to comply with the duty to investigate even thought is reprehensible, it is not per se a valid reason to keep the provisional measures.7 28. In addition, in relation to the arguments of the representatives regarding the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the criminal proceeding in which Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza rendered a testimony, and in the investigations on the facts that gave rise to these measures (supra Considering clause 21.a), the Tribunal recalls that, before a request for provisional measures, the Court needs to consider only those arguments which relate strictly to the extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Such other issues can only be analyzed and decided by the Court during the consideration of the merits of a contentious case.8 6 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of July 6, 2009; Considering clause twenty-four. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, considering clause seven; and Case of the Integrantes del Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial (ECAP), Case of Plan of Sánchez Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering Clause sixteen. 7 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 6, considering clause twenty four; and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al., supra note 6, considering clause seventeen. 8 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998; considering clause six; Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”); Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center; Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) and El Rodeo I and El rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center; supra note 2, considering clause five; and Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 2, considering clause sixteen.