13 assessment should made about whether they should continue. In particular, the Court considers that the fight against the alleged context of harassment of human rights defenders is a matter for the contentious jurisdiction. Furthermore, it indicated (supra considering paragraphs 26 and 29) that it is in the context of litigation and not in a precautionary procedure that it is in order to examine the presumed measures of voluntary restraint adopted by the beneficiaries. The Commission is not processing a dispute in this matter, even though the provisional measures were adopted more than six years ago. 42. That, in view of the absence of information concerning extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to life and personal integrity, the Court proceeds to rescind the provisional measures adopted in this matter. 43. That the Court observes that, while these measures were in force, the State did not provide adequate information on the implementation of various aspects of the measures ordered by the Court. In this regard, the rescinding of the said provisional measures does not signify that the State has complied fully with the Orders issued by the Court in the context of the said measures. 44. That, as indicated above when examining the obligation to investigate the harassment and situation of danger of any individual, the Court reiterates that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms embodied therein and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons who are subject to their jurisdiction. These obligations must be complied with fully, irrespective of the existence of the provisional measures ordered by the Court in this matter.11 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 26 and 30 of its Rules of Procedure,12 DECIDES: 1. To rescind the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on November 27, 2002, February 21, 2003, December 2, 2003, May 4, 2004, March 1, 2005, and June 14, 2005, in favor of Liliana Ortega, Hilda Páez [Gilda Páez], Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano [Lizcano] and Alicia de González. 2. To require the Secretariat of the Court to notify this Order to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the representatives of the beneficiaries, and the Venezuelan State. 3. To close this case file. 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, third considering paragraph; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Court of May 2, 2008, nineteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Carlos Nieto et al., supra note 8, third considering paragraph. 12 Rules of Procedure of the Court partially amended during its eighty-second regular session held from January 19 to 31, 2009.