27 members is not apparent, nor can there be said to exist a situation of extreme gravity and urgency to the detriment of the representatives because of the disappearance of the photographs of Nitza Paola and Rocío Irene Alvarado from the offices of the Center for Human Rights of Paso del Norte (supra Considering 50(e)). 65. Regarding the representative Emilia González Tercero, the Court notes that she had been the target of particular intimidation on the part of military officials consistent with the same pattern of intimidating visits that were conducted against the family members (supra Considering 54) a short time after the adoption of provisional measures in the present case. The Tribunal acknowledges the State’s information that the subpoena in that case was related to a properly constituted investigation, but at the same time it notes that the same State institution that reported on that investigation in the State’s name - that is, SEDENA - had provided contrary information to the representatives. The Court likewise observes the State’s remark that the subpoena was served without any sort of threat or intimidation; however, the manner in which service was carried out (which the State did not deny) and the lack of clarity regarding the circumstances related to the commencement of that investigation could constitute prima facie an act or form of intimidation. 66. Therefore, the Court finds that this concrete fact together with the alleged context of harassment and violence against human rights defenders, which has not been denied by the State, constitute prima facie evidence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that could give rise to irreparable harm to the lives and right to humane treatment of Emilia Gonzáles Tercero, for which the Tribunal believes it appropriate to expand provisional measures to include her. However, based on the information provided, the Tribunal finds that a prima facie situation of extreme gravity and urgency leading to possible irreparable harm to the rights of the remaining representatives in the present case is not justified. Thus, the Court will not expand provisional measures in their favor at this time. 67. Without prejudice to the foregoing considerations, the Court deems it appropriate to recall that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. These provisions apply not only in relation to State power, but also with respect to third parties.47 68. The Tribunal also stresses the State’s special duty to protect those persons working in non-governmental organizations as well as other groups or individuals who work in the defense of human rights because their labor constitutes a positive and complementary contribution to the State’s efforts in its position as guarantor of the rights of all persons subject to its jurisdiction. 69. The State must carry out the relevant procedures such that the provisional measures mandated in this Order are planned and executed together with the participation of the beneficiaries of the same or their representatives in order that they be implemented in a timely and effective manner, keeping in mind their special protective needs consistent with the specific circumstances of every case. The Court stresses that the positive participation of the State and, particularly, of the representatives is essential in order to coordinate the implementation of provisional measures in this case. 47 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 28, Considering clause three; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, supra note 28, Considering clause twenty-three; and Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility “Tocorón Prison,” supra note 2, Considering clause thirteen.