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 has the special obligation of guaranteeing the rights of those who are in a situation of risk and must promote the investigations required to elucidate the facts and, as appropriate, punish those responsible.15 In this investigation, the State concerned must make every effort to determine all the facts surrounding the threats and how they were expressed; to determine whether a pattern of threats exists against the beneficiaries or the group or entity to which they belong; to determine the objective or purpose of the threats, and to determine who is behind the threats and, as appropriate, punish them.16 Furthermore, the Court recalls that, in the context of monitoring compliance in this case, it will continue analyzing the State’s obligation to remove all the factual and legal obstacles or mechanisms that maintain impunity in the case of Carpio Nicolle et al., to grant the witnesses, judicial authorities, prosecutors, other agents of justice, and the next of kin of the victims sufficient guarantees of safety, and to use all available means to expedite the proceedings. 34. In any event, the Court recalls that if, in the course of the ongoing domestic investigations, some type of specific situation of risk or threat should occur that places the life or physical integrity of the beneficiaries at risk, the Court can analyze the situation in accordance with its authority under Article 63(2) of the Convention. 17 35. Finally, the Court reiterates that provisional measures are exceptional in nature and are complementary to the general obligation of the States. In this regard, the presumptions that cause the Court to lift provisional measures can never imply that the State is relieved of its treaty-based protection obligations. Hence, the Court emphasizes that, irrespective of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is obliged to guarantee the rights of the persons who were the beneficiaries of the said measures.18 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the authority conferred upon it by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 27 of its Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 1. To lift the provisional measures ordered in favor of Karen Fischer, Daniela Carpio Fischer, Rodrigo Carpio Fischer, Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio, Jorge Carpio Arrivillaga, Rodrigo Carpio Arrivillaga, and Abraham Méndez García, his wife and children, in accordance with the twenty-sixth to thirty-fifth considering paragraphs of this Order. 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, third considering paragraph, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic, supra, forty-second considering paragraph. 16 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia, twenty-first considering paragraph. 17 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia, twenty-fourth considering paragraph. 18 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia, twenty-fifth considering paragraph. 12