warrants maintaining provisional measures. Moreover, on certain occasions, the duty to investigate may be prolonged for a considerable period, during which time the threat or risk does not necessarily remain extreme and urgent. This Court has also pointed out that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations and procedures related to the facts that gave rise to the provisional measures corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case. 20 To summarize, failure to fulfill the duty to investigate is not per se sufficient reason to maintain provisional measures. 104. Finally, the Court reiterates that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, in all circumstances. Provisional measures, for their part, have an exceptional nature and are complementary to this general obligation of the States. In this regard, the assumptions for the lifting of provisional measures by the Court cannot imply that the State is relieved of its treaty obligations to protect those present in its territory. Therefore, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is obliged to guarantee the rights of individuals in a situation of risk and must expedite the investigations required to elucidate the facts reported and, if appropriate, punish those responsible. 21 In conducting such investigations, the State in question must make every effort to determine all the facts surrounding the threat and how it was manifested; to determine whether there is a pattern of threats against the beneficiary or group or entity to which he or she belongs; to determine the object or purpose of the threat; and to determine those responsible for the threat, and if applicable, punish them. 22 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 the Court’s Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 1. To extend the provisional measures ordered in this matter, so that the State may adopt the measures necessary to continue protecting the life and physical integrity of Mrs. Luz Elsia Almanza Suárez. 2. To change the name of this matter, which shall now be called the “Matter of Almanza Suárez regarding Colombia.” 20 Cf. Matter Pilar Noriega Garcia et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, Considering para. 14, and Matter Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of February 8, 2013, Considering para. 37. 21 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. . Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6,2009, Considering para. 24, and Matter Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of February 8, 2013, Considering para. 49. 22 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering para. 24, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, Considering para. 47. 24