investigation against the individuals who could really be threatening the Foundation’s personnel and the Peccerelli family.” The representatives also forwarded an explanatory table of all the threats reported by the FAFG from 2002 to April 2010, based on which they concluded that, during this time, there had been 64 different acts of intimidation carried out by different means and against different persons related in one way or another to the Foundation. In 11 of these, the Public Prosecution Service had presented “an administrative result of the investigation,” while, in 29 cases it had not presented any result. The representatives recognized that some progress had been made in the investigations, but expressed their concern since “most of the complaints filed had not been truly investigated, because the investigations were based on interviews and, without further investigation, the assumption that the information provided was true, correct and did not implicate anyone.” In this regard, they asked “that the judicial investigation be conducted more thoroughly to include all the events, thus avoiding the bias with which it has been carried out to date”; “that the FAFG be notified promptly and periodically of the findings of any subsequent investigations,” and “that, in light of the significant differences of opinion between the beneficiaries and the current prosecutor in charge of the case, [the latter] be relieved of this case […] and a special prosecutor be appointed, or […] another prosecutor from […] the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service.” 39. On April 22, 2010, the Commission indicated that “it [was] necessary to establish a clear and coherent line of investigation into the facts and the corresponding responsibility and for the interested parties to have access to it.” Subsequently, in August 2010, it expressed concern “that the investigations conducted by the State up until this time have not identified those responsible for the threats and that the beneficiaries do not have adequate access to the corresponding information.” It considered that this, added to the new threats to the beneficiaries of the measures, revealed that the State was not complying fully with all aspects stipulated in the Court’s Orders. During the above-mentioned public hearing, it emphasized that the State had not presented detailed information regarding the investigation of the events that occurred after January 2009. In addition, in February 2011, it insisted that the absence of a clear line of investigation that was coherent with the facts would not permit “identification of the source of the risk to the beneficiaries,” and that the information provided by Guatemala “was very general and did not permit a clear, overall assessment of the results required [in this matter].” 40. The Court observes that, in its Order of January 26, 2009, it asked the State for specific information on “the investigation of the facts that led to the adoption of these provisional measures.”21 However, the Court finds it pertinent to clarify that although, previously, during the processing of these provisional measures, its criteria had been to request the State to investigate the facts that had led to the respective provisional measures and to report to the Court in this regard, taking into account the characteristics of these provisional measures and the fact that they have been in place for more than four years, the Court now finds that the issue of the investigation would require it to make an analysis of the merits, which is beyond the scope of the provisional measures. 41. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. Consequently, irrespective of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is obliged to guarantee the rights of individuals in a situation of risk, and 21 Cf. Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala, supra note 14, third operative paragraph. 15