14. Regarding Miguel Ángel Sánchez, the State advised that the Naval Coastguard of Río Grande had guarded his domicile since July 2011. In addition, in a brief of July 2, 2012 (supra having seen paragraph 3), it indicated that “[t]he protection [of the other beneficiaries] is carried out by an agent stationed throughout the 24 hours, and in the case of Mr. Sánchez, this is reinforced with an extra man during the night shift […].” The State also indicated that, at that time, “there was no proof that [Miguel Ángel Sánchez had] suffered any type of threat and/or harassment.” With regard to the situation of Tamara Bolívar, in a brief of October 25, 2012, the State indicated that “[s]he has no fixed domicile, and it was unaware of whether she was in the city.” 15. Regarding Miguel Ángel Sánchez, in a brief of May 31, 2012, the Inter-American Commission “note[d] with concern that the State merely indicated that it maintains the protection plan assigned to the other beneficiaries, even though they have stated that it is insufficient […].” The Commission made no specific reference to the situation of Tamara Bolívar. 16. The Court observes that, since March 2, 2012, the representatives have not referred to the presumed threatening telephone calls to the domicile and mobile telephone of Miguel Ángel Sánchez, which had started in September 2011, or to any other incident that would allow the Court to consider that Mr. Sánchez is still in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. Furthermore, the representatives have not provided specific information, as regards the timing, means and place, of the supposed illegal arrests suffered by Tamara Bolívar that would allow the Court to determine, prima facie, whether the situation she faced of extreme gravity and urgency and of risk of suffering irreparable damage subsists to date. 17. Given that the eight-month period established in the Order of November 25, 2011, for the validity of these provisional measures has expired (supra considering paragraph 6), and in view of the absence of elements that prove the subsistence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, and of risk of suffering irreparable damage in keeping with Article 63(2) of the American Convention, the Court considers that it is in order to lift the provisional measures ordered in favor of Miguel Ángel Sánchez and Tamara Bolívar. A.3. Guarantee obligations of the Argentine State 18. The decisions taken in sections A.1 and A.2 of this Order do not preclude that, if in the future, the three requirements established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention concur once more, the Court may order the adoption of new provisional measures. Moreover, it should be repeated that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and to ensure the free and full exercise of these rights and freedoms to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, under any circumstance. Therefore, despite the lifting of the provisional measures ordered above, the State is obliged to guarantee the rights of the persons mentioned in the said sections using the relevant domestic mechanisms.15 19. In addition, the Court observes that, in the Judgment delivered on August 26, 2011, in the Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, which is related to this matter, the State was ordered to ensure that those who took part in the investigation of the events of which Iván Eladio Torres Millacura was a victim, including the next of kin of the victims and witnesses, have appropriate guarantees for their safety.16 This case is at the stage of monitoring compliance and, recently, 15 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of October 23, 2012, twenty-first considering paragraph. 16 Cf. Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 164(b). 7