18 of the Convention are met (supra Considering clause 2) with regard to persons for whom such measures are being sought. In this sense, the Court has already said that in accordance with the Convention and the Rules of Procedure, the burden of proving these prima facie requirements rests with the petitioner14 who, in this case, is the Inter-American Commission. 18. The Court observes that the Inter-American Commission has referred in general terms to facts according to which the members of the ICJP allegedly have been the target of threats, surveillance, and attempts on their lives, among others, without specifying who these members are, nor when or how these events may have occurred. 19. Now, the Commission has mentioned some acts apparently committed against some persons who may be members of the ICJP. Yet, the Court observes that according to the list sent by the Commission as to the members of the ICJP (supra Having Seen 10), Messrs. Yimy Jansasoy, Javier Giraldo, S.J., and Iván Cepeda are not members of the same, and therefore the Court cannot consider the facts as argued for the purposes of assessing the Commission’s request for provisional measures. 20. As it relates to facts concerning members of the ICJP, the Inter-American Commission alleged generally that Messrs. Danilo Rueda, Abilio Peña, and Alberto Franco have been the target of threats without providing concrete examples. The Commission also indicated that Mr. Danilo Rueda had been accused of procedural fraud “with the goal of discrediting him,” and that Mr. Alberto Franco had been accused of being a terrorist and of having committed murder and discrimination, without argument or providing more input as to how that places them in a situation of extreme gravity, urgency, and facing the threat of irreparable harm so as to warrant the adoption of provisional measures in their favor. 21. With respect to the Commission’s allegations that the investigation of alleged threats is being carried out in an environment of impunity, the Court stresses that, according to its jurisprudence, an analysis of a party’s effectiveness in properly investigating the facts giving rise to provisional measures corresponds to an examination of the case on the merits,15 thus rendering it peripheral to the Court’s consideration in the present case. 22. From the above, the Court finds that given the information submitted by the Commission, all of the requirements of Article 63(2) of the Convention and Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure have not been met. Thus, the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission must be denied. 23. Notwithstanding this determination, the Court reminds the parties that States are under a constant and permanent duty to fulfill the general obligations that 14 Cf. Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al., supra note 6, Considering clause five; Case of the Caracazo, supra note 6, Considering clause eight; and, Matter of Four Ngöbe Indigenous Communities and its Members. Provisional Measures regarding Panama. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering clause eleven. 15 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering clause twenty-three; Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering clause twenty-seven; and, Matter of Wong Ho Wing, supra note 11, Considering clause nine.