14 17. Thus, the State should utilize all possible means to reduce the level of violence at the Confinement Center. In that respect, the Court considers that the rights to life and humane treatment not only imply that the State should respect those rights (negative obligation), but also require that the State adopt all appropriate measures to guarantee those rights (positive obligation), in compliance with its general duty established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 12 18. That, in order to prevent the recurrence of those events described, the State's adoption of protective measures is not sufficient; those measures and their implementation must also be effective. 19. That the State should take all relevant steps to ensure that the measures ordered by the Court are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries. 20. That it is the duty of the State to protect and to respect the function served by the non-governmental organizations and other groups or individuals that defend human rights and fundamental freedoms of those deprived of liberty, because these entities constitute a positive and complementary contribution to the efforts made by the State in its role as guarantor of rights of those under its custody. 13 21. That it is essential that the provisional measures are maintained in full force and effect until the Court orders their discontinuance and serves notice thereof upon the State.14 * * * 22. That the representatives and the Inter-American Commission indicated that the State has not sent information regarding the investigations on the events that prompted the adoption of the provisional measures, the identification of those responsible, and the imposition of the corresponding sanctions, including the administrative and disciplinary ones (supra Having Seen paragraphs 4.e.i, 5.e.i and 5.e.ii). 23. That the assessment of the effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings concerning the events that prompted the adoption of the present provisional measures corresponds to the analysis of the merits of the case, which is currently before the InterAmerican Commission. THEREFORE: 12 Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 139; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 25, 2006, Considering paragraph thirteenth, and Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 4, 2006, Considering paragraph thirteenth. 13 Cf. Matter of Lysias Fleury. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of December 2, 2003, Considering paragraph tenth; Matter of Giraldo Cardona. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 29, 2006, Considering paragraph nineteenth, and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Provisional Measures, supra note 12, Considering paragraph twelfth. 14 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 1, 2005, Considering paragraph tenth; Matter of the Pueblo indígena Kankuamo. Provisional Measures, supra note 5, Considering paragraph fourteenth, and Matter of Giraldo Cardona. Provisional Measures, supra note 13, Considering paragraph twentieth first.