8 22. Moreover, the Court reiterates11 that an alleged lack of investigation by the State does not necessarily constitute circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency that require maintaining the provisional measures. In addition, at times the obligation to investigate may be prolonged for an extended period, during which the threat or risk may not necessarily remain extreme or urgent. Also, the Court has stated that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings in relation to the facts that led to the provisional measures, corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case.12 In brief, non-compliance with the obligation to investigate is not per se sufficient reason to maintain the provisional measures. 23. In conclusion, the Court observes that, over the past five years, it has not been kept informed in a consistent, detailed, and well-founded way about specific situations of risk that the beneficiary has faced, and considers that the hypothetical risk of threats against her for her participation in the domestic criminal proceedings and the failure to clarify the facts that gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures in this case is not sufficient to conclude that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists likely to cause her irreparable harm. 24. In any event, the Court recalls that if, in the course of the domestic investigations that are underway, some type of specific situation of risk or threat should occur that places Mrs. Parra’s life or physical integrity at risk, the Court can analyze the situation pursuant to its authority under Article 63(2) of the Convention. 25. Lastly, the Court reiterates that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, in all circumstances. Moreover, provisional measures are exceptional in nature and are complementary to this general obligation of the States. In this regard, the presumptions that cause the Court to lift provisional measures can never imply that the State is relieved of its treaty-based protection obligations. Hence, the Court emphasizes that, irrespective of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is obliged to guarantee Mrs. Parra’s rights. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, By virtue of the authority granted by Article 63 (2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 11 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of July 6, 2009, twenty-fourth considering paragraph; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, supra note 8, sixteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, seventeenth considering paragraph. 12 Cf. Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional measures with regard to the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, twenty-ninth considering paragraph, and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al., supra note 11, eighteenth considering paragraph.