the representatives acknowledged at the public hearing that they have not denounced certain threatening acts against Ms. Lanza Ochoa before the State authorities since August 10, 2011. Moreover, on May 7, 2012, the beneficiary signed the authorization as injured party so that the Attorney Office is able to investigate the threats issued against her (supra Considering clause 11). However, they indicated that certain intimidating practices “are permanent,” such as threatening phone calls or emails, and the recent facts reported. Based on the foregoing, the Court observes that there are indications to presume the context of specific danger and practices of intimidation to the detriment of the beneficiary; hence the risk of infringement of her right to life and personal integrity still exists. 23. In view of the risk faced by the beneficiary of the measures, the Court values the State’s position with regard to the adoption of, among other measures, the actions necessary to resolve the deficiencies in the implementation of the provisional measures by holding work meetings, providing adequate security measures in her favor, and the willingness to implement a comprehensive program for the protection of human rights defenders (supra Considering clause 7). 24. In this respect, the Court calls to mind that article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms included therein and to guarantee the free and full exercise of those rights to all persons that are subject to its jurisdiction. In this regard, it is necessary for the State to maintain communication with the beneficiary and her representatives to guarantee the implementation of the suitable measures according to the specific risk situation of Ms. Lanza Ochoa. 25. Couple with the foregoing, the Court deems necessary for the representatives to submit to the Tribunal, within the term established in the operative paragraphs of this Order, an updated assessment of the risk situation of the beneficiary of these measures. Additionally, the representatives must inform about the implementation of the measures agreed with the State for her security (infra Operative paragraph 3). 26. In turn, the State must submit detailed information regarding the measures of protection agreed with the representatives and their implementation (infra Operative paragraph 4). 27. With regard to the domestic investigations, the Court reiterates that the State has a special obligation to guarantee the rights of persons in risk situations, and that it must conduct the investigations necessary to clarify the facts, followed by the consequences established by the applicable law.7 However, the analysis of the effectiveness of said investigations and procedures regarding the facts that led to the adoption of these provisional measures corresponds to the evaluation of the merits of the case.8 6 See Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, Considering clause ten, and Case of González Medina et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2011. Considering thirteen. 7 See Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering clause three; Matter of Fernandez Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 20, 2012, considering clause thirty-three. 8 See Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering fourteen, and Matter of Martinez Martinez et al. Provisional measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 1, 2012, Considering twenty-seven. 8