almost two years ago. In addition, those facts were the subject of the Order of the Court issued in this case on June 30, 2011. Furthermore, the Court has not been informed of any possible incidents related to Maria Elena Soler de Gutierrez or Kevin Daniel Gutierrez Niño. Hence, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission justify the maintenance of the provisional measures on the fact that the criminal and disciplinary procedural activities underway in the context of the domestic judicial investigations against the presumed perpetrators of the human rights violations committed to the detriment of Wilson Gutierrez and his family constitute, per se, a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. In this regard, even though the obligation to investigate may, at times, extend over a considerable period of time, the threat or risk does not necessarily remain extreme and urgent.10 The Court observes that the representatives and the Commission assessed positively the usefulness of the measures implemented, which, according to the representatives, “have reduced the risk and contributed to the protection of the beneficiaries.” 19. Moreover, the Court recalls that, in the Judgment delivered in this case on September 12, 2005, it ordered the State to “investigate the facts effectively […] in order to identify, try and punish the perpetrators of the arrest and torture of Wilson Gutiérrez Soler” (paragraph 96). Furthermore, the State was ordered to “exercise special care to safeguard the life, integrity and safety of Wilson […] Gutiérrez Soler and his next of kin, and to provide them with the necessary protection from any person, bearing in mind the circumstances of the case […]” (tenth operative paragraph). Consequently, the Court considers that the said Judgment reveals not only the State’s obligation to investigate with due diligence the torture, threats and harassment reported by Wilson Gutierrez Soler, but also the State's obligation to implement all necessary mechanisms to ensure the participation of the victims, in particular, Mr. Gutierrez Soler, in the judicial proceedings and to guarantee his life, personal integrity and safety. 20. In conclusion, the Court observes that, over the last two years, no specific situations of risk to the beneficiaries have occurred; accordingly, the Court considers that the alleged and hypothetical "extreme risk" to Wilson Gutierrez Soler and his family, owing to his participation in the domestic legal proceedings and the failure to clarify the facts that gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures in this case, is not sufficient to conclude that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists that could result in irreparable damage against him and that justifies the existence of provisional measures ordered by this Court. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to lift the measures ordered in this case. The foregoing does not prevent the Court from re-ordering the provisional measures if, in the future, the three conditions established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention are again met. 21. Notwithstanding the above, the Court must reiterate that 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 persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, under any circumstance. Therefore, despite the lifting of the provisional measures ordered by this Court, the State is especially obliged to guarantee the rights of Wilson Gutierrez Soler, Kevin Daniel Gutierrez Niño and Maria Elena Soler de Gutierrez by means of the relevant existing domestic mechanisms. 10 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra, third considering paragraph, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra, thirty-seventh considering paragraph. 7