observations, the representatives did not refer to this piece of information submitted by the State. The Commission did not refer to these beneficiaries either, in any of their written observations. 43. In this regard, the Court takes note of what was informed by the representatives in October 2010, but observes that they have not submitted updated information regarding the beneficiaries since that date. Moreover, the Court also takes note of the State’s report of October 2011, according to which the beneficiaries had decided to continue living outside of Colombia. This Court emphasizes that the representatives have not denied or objected to said information in their briefs presented after the State report of October 2011. The Court also notes that in the Order of August 26, 2010, it did not rescind the provisional measures ordered in favor of José Luis Pundor Quintero and his family, by virtue of the fact that said beneficiaries had expressed their desire to return to Colombia, and that they had left the country due to the situation of insecurity in which they found themselves. On that occasion, the Court found it relevant to revoke the provisional measures ordered in favor of the beneficiaries, as long as there was uncertainty as to the wishes of the family to return and the date on which they would return. However, the Court notes that almost two years have passed and the beneficiaries had still not expressed their genuine and true willingness to return to Colombia or the precise dates thereof. On the contrary, according to the last piece of information forwarded to the Court by the State, which was not objected by the representatives, the beneficiaries had decided to live outside of Colombia. 44. The Court recalls that the usefulness (effet util) of provisional measures depends, to a great extent, on the real possibility that they can be implemented,33 for which, due to the lack of information regarding the situation of risk over a prolonged period, the protection measures are illusory. Additionally, the Court notes that neither the representatives nor the InterAmerican Commission have alleged the need to maintain the provisional measures in favor of said beneficiaries. In consequence, the Tribunal considers it is appropriate to rescind the provisional measures ordered in favor of Mr. José Luis Pundor Quintero and his family. 45. The Court recalls that Article 1(1) of the Convention embodies the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, in all circumstances, the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. For their part, provisional measures are of an exceptional nature and are complementary to this general obligation of States. In this sense, the cases where rescission of the provisional measures has been ordered by the Court cannot imply that the State is relieved of its treaty-based protection obligations. Therefore, the Court stresses that, irrespective of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is obliged to guarantee the rights of individuals in a situation of risk and must promote the necessary investigations to elucidate the facts, followed by the consequences that the pertinent laws establish,34 particularly in relation to the rights and the protection of victims and their relatives in the instant case. * 33 See Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of Court of July 4, 2006; Considering clause 13; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of August 30, 2010; Considering clause 35 and Matter of Perez Torres et al (“Cotton Field”). Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of June 30, 2011. Considering clause 13. 34 See Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988; Considering clause 3, and Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation regarding Guatemala. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011; Considering clause 41 and Case of Fernandez Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 20, 2012; Considering clause 31. 14