urgency and the need to avoid irreparable harm is derived, which would justify continuing with the monitoring of the obligation to guarantee the life, safety and security established in operative paragraph 11 of the Judgment. 37. The Tribunal recalls31 that an alleged lack of investigation by a State does not necessarily constitute a circumstance of extreme gravity and urgency that merits adopting provisional measures. In addition, at times the obligation to investigate may extend over a considerable period of time during which the threat or danger does not necessarily remain extreme and urgent. Likewise, this Court has held that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case32, thus failure to comply with the obligation to investigate is not in itself a sufficient reason to order provisional measures. 38. In any case, the Court notes that, if during the investigations being carried out at the domestic level or by reason of other facts related to the case, any specific situation of risk or threat arises jeopardizing the life or physical integrity of the aforementioned relatives of the victims who rendered statements, the Tribunal will analyze the situation in accordance with the jurisdiction provided for in Article 63(2) of the Convention. 39. Therefore, based on the foregoing considerations, the Court deems it is appropriate to terminate the monitoring of the obligation established in operative paragraph 11 of the Judgment, by means of which the State was ordered to “pay special attention to guaranteeing the lives, safety, and security of those who testified before the Court and their next of kin.” 4. Regarding the enforcement of the provisional measures in favor of Luis José Pundor Quintero and his family 40. The Court recalls that, in its Order of August 26, 2010, it requested the representatives to inform “on the genuine likelihood and disposition of [Jose Luis Pundor Quintero] and his family to return to Colombia and receive state protection”, who, by that time, lived outside of Colombia but had expressed the wish to return. Based on the foregoing, the Court considered that, during the time that Mr. Luis José Pundor Quintero and his family continue to reside away from Colombia, and until they affirm their wish to return to Colombia, the provisional measures in their favor would remain inchoate.. 41. In its report of October 2010, the representatives informed, inter alia, there were "circumstances not attributable to the will of the Pundor Estrada family that hinder its return to Colombia”. They explained that, "due to security reasons", in 2006, Jose Luis Pundor and his family had moved to Venezuela "seeking refuge", for which they were facing different problems that made it difficult for them to return. They indicated that said beneficiaries "had the strong will to return to Colombia", for which they had promised to notify in advance on the exact date of their return, once the problems previously mentioned are solved and they had also expressed interest in receiving the State's protection. 42 In its report of October 10, 2011, the State communicated that the representatives had informed that Mr. José Luis Pundor Quintero and his family “expressed a wish to continue residing in Venezuela,” so “for the time being they do not want to return to Colombia.” In their 31 See Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009; Considering clause 24, and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of Court of July 9, 2009; Considering clause 17. 32 Matter of Pilar Noriega Garcia et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008. Considering clause 14. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al, Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 9, 2009; Considering clause 18. 13