authority that could reasonably be expected to prevent or avoid such risk.167 On the other hand, the Court has asserted that, “depending on the case, the obligation to investigate cases of violations of a certain substantive right may be a means to safeguard, protect or ensure that right.”168 178. The facts show that after September 19, 2001, when there was an attempt on the life of Olimpiades González, the State ordered police protection for him (supra paras. 71 and 73). That measure was effectively implemented. The Court does not have elements to determine whether there were faults in the implementation of the protective measure that ended in harm to the personal integrity of Mr. González. The scant information presented to the Court on the complaints of Mr. González in this respect is not sufficient to make that analysis and, in addition, it is not obvious, per se, that the such faults would have caused harm to his personal integrity. 179. It has also been claimed that the lack of a diligent investigation into the attack against Mr. González in September 2001 was related to the failure to design and implement adequate measures of protection. However, there are no details on that investigation in the factual framework contained in the Merits Report. The Commission’s Report only mentions that, on June 13, 2002, the investigation was closed and was then reopened in 2004. 180. The Court finds it impossible, therefore, to evaluate the due diligence of the investigation. Neither can it rule on the alleged relation that the manner in which these actions were conducted might have had on the adoption of protective measures on behalf of Mr. González. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the denial, in July 2002, of the request of Mr. González that the protective measures be extended in his favor is contrary to his rights under the Convention. 181. There is no information on the investigation between 2004 and 2006. Nor is there any information to show that, between those years, the State authorities were aware of the attempts against Mr. González or of events that signified a risk to him. Nor is there any information that would indicate that, when Mr. Gonzalez requested in 2004 that the investigation be reopened into the attack of 2001, he required protective measures. 182. Mr. González died after the attack on December 11, 2006 by an individual who shot him in the back. This occurred more than five years after the first attack against him and more than four years after the protective measures were lifted.169 The Court has not received any information that would indicate that, after latter date, the State Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 155 and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 140. 167 Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 298 and Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2019. Series C No. 374, para. 110. 168 The expert María Lucrecia Hernández stated that “there exists a considerable lapse of time between the Tribunal’s rejection of an extension of the protective measure and the lamentable fact of his death (four years), during which there was nothing new that merited the granting of another protective measure by the judicial body, nor is there any indication of a request for a protective measure by the victim or a family member and, therefore, it can be presumed that during that time there was no real and imminent danger that merited the granting de oficio of a measure by the judicial bodies” (written expert opinion of María Lucrecia Hernández). 169 45