35. The Court points out that, based on the information provided by the parties since February 2011, when the last order was issued on this matter, the only fact that has been mentioned is a telephone call inquiring after the family. With respect to the Commission’s argument that this fact would constitute an indication of continued risk (supra Considering paragraph 32), this Court considers that this event, of itself, is not directly related to the facts that prompted the adoption of these measures (supra Considering paragraph 2) and therefore it cannot conclude that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists. 36. As to the argument of the representatives that the State’s failure to provide information on the status of the investigations into the facts of which the beneficiaries were allegedly victims (supra Considering paragraph 31), the Court recalls that the supposed lack of an investigation by a State does not necessarily constitute a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that warrants the adoption of provisional measures. 22 Also, on certain occasions, the duty to investigate may be prolonged for a considerable period, during which time the threat or risk is not necessarily extreme and urgent. Moreover, this Court has stated that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case. 23 Therefore, failure to fulfill the duty to investigate is not per se sufficient reason to order provisional measures. 24 37. The Court recalls that the effectiveness of the provisional measures depends, in great measure, on the real possibility of their being implemented; 25 thus, given the lack of information regarding the situation of risk during a prolonged period, the measures of protection are illusory. 26 The Court has also emphasized that provisional measures are of an exceptional character, are issued based on the need for protection and refer to a specific temporary situation and, by their very nature, cannot be perpetuated indefinitely (supra Considering paragraph 28). Given that in the last two years no specific information has been provided to show a continued situation of risk, in accordance with the requirements established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention, the Court deems it appropriate to lift the provisional measures ordered in favor of Mariela Duarte, widow of Giraldo, and her daughters Sara and Natalia Giraldo. C. Regarding the reopening ceremony of the Civic Human Rights Committee of Meta 38. As to the public ceremony to reopen the Civic Committee of Meta, in the last Order issued in 2011 regarding these provisional measures, this Court stated that it: 22 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 6, 2009, Considering paragraph 24, and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 9, 2009, Considering paragraph 17. 23 Cf. Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of February 6, 2008, Considering paragraph 14, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 37. 24 Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of February 2, 2010, Considering paragraph 34, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 37. 25 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of July 4, 2006, Considering paragraph 13, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 44. 26 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Mapiripán. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of March 1, 2011, Considering paragraph 31, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 44. 12