16. Furthermore the State sustained, regarding the complaint filed by Hernan Antonio Bolivar, that “it is still at the preliminary stage, within the reasonable term, for which it cannot be considered as a lack of due diligence on the part of the Venezuelan State". In this respect, the Court recalls that the urgency required for the adoption of provisional measures refers to special and exceptional situations that require and merit immediate action and response aimed at averting the threat. From the urgent nature of the threat it follows that the response must be, above all, immediate to confront such a situation, since a lack of response would implicate danger.10 To this end, given that the duty to investigate, on certain occasions, may be prolonged for a considerable period of time, the State must implement, on a priority basis, other types of measures whose fundamental purpose is the effective protection and preservation of life and personal integrity, in order to avert the threat and urgently respond to the situation. Without detriment to the foregoing, in the framework of complementary investigations undertaken, the State in question must do its utmost to determine all the facts surrounding the threat and the nature of the threat, to determine whether there exists a pattern of threats against the beneficiary or the group or entity to which she belongs; to determine the purpose or intention of the threat and to determine those responsible for the threat and, if applicable, punish them.11 17. In conclusion, from the information provided there is a clear prima facie situation of severe risk against the life and integrity of Marianela Sánchez Ortiz, her husband Hernán Antonio Bolivar and their children Anthony Alberto Bolivar Sánchez and Andra Antonela Bolivar Sanchez, which requires urgent measures of protection. Therefore, the Court considers that these provisional measures must be expanded in order to protect the life and integrity of those aforementioned. In this respect, it is necessary that the State make all the pertinent arrangements to ensure that the provisional measures ordered in this Order are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries of the measures, or with their representatives, to ensure that the measures are provided in a diligent and effective manner. Finally, the Court recalls that the State has the permanent and constant duty of complying with the general obligations according to Article 1(1) of the Convention, that is, to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and ensure to all persons subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms.12 Moreover, States have the specific duty to protect all people working in nongovernmental organizations and give effective and adequate guarantees to human rights defenders so that they may perform their tasks freely, and to deplore acts that prevent or hamper their work since such work constitutes a positive contribution and supplements the efforts made by the State in its capacity of guarantor of the rights of persons under its jurisdiction13 and specially, of those incarcerated. In this regard, the 18. 10 Cf. Matter of Rodeo I and Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center, eighteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, sixteenth considering paragraph. 11 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle, twenty-forth considering paragraph and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, fortyseventh considering paragraph. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, third considering paragraph, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, forty-fifth considering paragraph. 13 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, fourteenth considering 10