9 grave risk that his rights to life and personal integrity will be violated. 12. It should be recalled that Article 1(1) of the American Convention sets forth the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and liberties enshrined in the Convention and to guarantee the free and full exercise of these rights for all individuals subject to their jurisdiction. These obligations apply not only with regard to State power, but also with regard to the actions of private third parties. This Court has found that the State is in a special position to guarantee rights with regard to individuals deprived of liberty due to the fact that penitentiary authorities exercise total control over those individuals.7 13. Likewise, the information provided by the Inter-American Commission alleges the existence of acts of surveillance, harassment, intimidation, and threats against Yuverky Almonte Herrera, Ana Josefa Montilla, Joel Almonte, Genaro Rincón and Francisco de León Herrera. 14. The President takes into account that, as according to information provided by the Inter-American Commission, Ms. Ana Josefa Montilla wife of Mr. Juan Almonte Herrera, is not currently living within the territory of the Dominican Republic, as she apparently left upon feeling fear and insecurity over the alleged surveillance and harassment by plainclothes police officers (supra Having Seen 2(f)). The Inter-American Commission requested provisional measures to her benefit, to be implemented once she returns to the country. 15. The State reported that a police guard was ordered set up for all the relatives of Mr. Almonte Herrera, with the exception of Ms. Ana Josefa Montilla (supra Having Seen 8(g)). However, the State did not make reference to the manner in which this police guard would function. Likewise, the President is not aware of whether Genaro Rincón and Francisco de León Herrera currently enjoy protective measures implemented to their benefit, as the State did not report on this aspect. 16. The State’s adoption of particular measures of protection is not enough. Rather, these measures and their implementation must be effective such that the threats toward and harassment of the individuals whose protection is sought cease. For its part, the State is particularly obliged to guarantee the rights of individuals in a situation of risk and must move forward with the investigations necessary to clear up the facts, followed by the consequences established in the pertinent legislation.8 17. The prima facie evaluation standard in a given matter and the use of assumptions given the need for protection have moved the President and the Court to order provisional measures on several occasions.9 7 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering 11; Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra footnote 2, Considering 13, and Matter of Natera Balboa, supra footnote 4, Considering 14. 8 9 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, supra footnote 2, Considering 93 and 94. Cf. inter alia, Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 13, 2006, Considering 16; Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra footnote 2, Considering 14, and Matter of Natera Balboa, supra footnote 4, Considering 5.