members of CAVIDA and is in the process of implementing a series of specific measures of protection in their favor (supra having seen paragraph 19), in coordination with them and their representatives. 20. In this regard also, the information provided by the State that, during the last meeting convened by the Inter-American Commission on the preventive measures, “the beneficiaries of the preventive measures [ordered by the Commission, that] cover the proposed beneficiaries of provisional measures, have indicated that they are not interested in individual measures of protection, but rather collective measures for all the members of CAVIDA, which were, in fact, adopted by the competent instance and include precise measures, specifically agreed on with the representatives” (supra having seen paragraph 19). This has not been contested by either the representatives or the Inter-American Commission. 21. In addition, the representatives and the Commission have not made a clear connection between the alleged facts, most of which occurred prior to the said hearing, and the increased visibility that these individuals have acquired owing to their participation in the hearing or their status as community leaders. Moreover, as grounds for their request, they even refer to supposed incidents that have occurred to other people who are not the proposed beneficiaries. 22. Despite the above, it should be repeated that the preventive measures ordered by the Commission remain in force. The State is adopting measures of protection and has expressed its willingness to maintain rigorously all the mandates, orders, actions and measures that had been implemented in the context of the preventive measures before the Commission” (supra having seen paragraph 19). Thus, and without prejudice to the Court continuing to monitor the situation of the presumed victims in the case that it is hearing, the State has undertaken to continue adopting collective measures of protection and, as required also those of an individual nature, in favor of these persons and other members of CAVIDA who may require this, within the framework of the said preventive measures. Thus, it is evident that it corresponds to the State to assess the specific situation of risk of each of the proposed beneficiaries. Consequently, this Order in no way affects the measures of protection that the State has already implemented, or interferes with the preventive measures ordered by the Inter-American Commission. 23. In addition to the above, the Court reiterates that the State has the constant and permanent obligation to comply with the general obligations that correspond to it under Article 1(1) of the Convention to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in this instrument and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, under any circumstance. 33 Consequently, the Court reiterates to the State that, based on the principle of complementarity and subsidiarity, it is the States themselves that are primarily obliged to guarantee the life, security and integrity of the individual through their domestic organs and jurisdiction. In this way, in order to implement the obligation to protect the individual, when necessary, the States must conduct individual or specific risk assessments and, as appropriate, implement the necessary measures of protection to ensure the security of people in a situation of risk. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, third considering paragraph; Case of Helen Mack Chang et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of November 16, 2009, thirty-first considering paragraph, and Case of García Prieto et al. Provisional measures with regard to El Salvador. Order of the Court of February 3, 2010, fifteenth considering paragraph. 17