with regard to them or to those who are in a situation of risk, and to expedite the investigations required to clarify the facts and to punish those responsible, as appropriate. 17 Indeed, 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 those subject to their jurisdiction, the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, and this is required not only with regard to the powers of the State, but also in relation to the actions of private third parties. 18 15. Also, the State had the obligation to present its bi-monthly reports on the implementation of the provisional measures within the time frame and with the frequency indicated by the Court. 19 However, since these provisional measures were ordered, the State has only submitted three of the 23 reports it should have presented, so that the State has not complied with its obligation to provide information duly and promptly. The Court has established that failure to comply with the State obligation to provide information on all the provisional measures adopted in compliance with the Court’s decisions is especially serious, in view of the juridical nature of these measures, which seek to prevent irreparable damage to persons in situations of extreme gravity and urgency. 20 16. Lastly, the Court recalls that the adoption, lifting, or declaration of non-compliance with the provisional measures does not imply an eventual decision on the merits of the dispute if the case should, ultimately, be submitted to the consideration of the Court, nor does it prejudge the State’s responsibility for the facts denounced. 21 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its attributes under Articles 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and 27 and 31(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, 22 DECIDES: 17 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 4, twenty-fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Álvarez et al., supra note 5, one hundred and fourth considering paragraph. 18 Cf. Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of June 18, 2002, eleventh considering paragraph, and Matter of the Socio-educational Internment Facility, supra note 17, twenty-first considering paragraph. 19 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, twelfth considering paragraph, and Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 10, eleventh considering paragraph. 20 Cf. Case of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 7, 2004, sixteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2012, twentyfourth considering paragraph. 21 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 13, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional measures with regard to Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, forty-third considering paragraph, and Case of the Barrios Family, supra note 1, sixteenth considering paragraph. 22 2009. The Court’s Rules of Procedure approved at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28 7