information to support the interest or the desire of the beneficiaries to maintain these provisional measures in force or on the persistence of the alleged situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to them. The Court also observes that, in this proceeding on provisional measures, the State has not provided a satisfactory response to the measures ordered by the Court in its Order of September 21, 2009 (supra having seen paragraph 2). During this proceeding, the State had responded that it would take measures and that it would communicate with local authorities, actions that apparently have not occurred (supra having seen paragraph 7). 14. Furthermore, the Court also observes that the State failed to forward the information requested by the Court in the Secretariat’s communications of January 11, June 2 and July 23, 2010. It is pertinent to recall that it is essential that the State respond and provide information when the organs of the inter-American human rights system request this so that the protection mechanism can function effectively.5 15. In view of the absence of information on extreme gravity and the urgency of avoiding irreparable damage to the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries, the Court proceeds to lift the provisional measures adopted in this matter. 16. Lastly, the Court reiterates that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, under all circumstances. Moreover, provisional measures are of an exceptional nature and are complementary to this general obligation of the States. In this regard, the presumptions considered by the Court to lift provisional measures cannot signify that the State is relieved of its protection obligations under the Convention. Consequently, the Court emphasizes that, irrespective of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is obliged to ensure the rights of A.J., J.L., Michelet Laguerre, Pierre Luc Sael, and their respective next of kin. THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 1. To lift the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on September 21, 2009, in favor of A.J., J.L., Michelet Laguerre, Pierre Luc Sael, Sterlin Joudain, André Junior Laurore, Sonise Joseph, Josué Matthieu Laurore and their respective next of kin. 5 Cf. Matter of A.J. et al. Provisional measures with regard to Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, ninth considering paragraph, and Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, twelfth considering paragraph. 6