11 29. The Court values and takes note of the commitment assumed by the State in the sense of driving the investigations and giving priority to those related to the members of the Peace Community (supra Considering 25). On the other hand, regarding the representative’s argument that the “type of justice” that is being “implemented” to address the acts which have been committed against the members of the Peace Community (supra Considering 26), the Tribunal considers that Convention violations which are derived from a presumed lack of effectiveness or due diligence in investigations should be analyzed in the respective contentious case and not in the context of provisional measures.11 The Court considers that, in any case, such matters should be analyzed by the Inter-American Commission during the procedures for the corresponding petition. Additionally, in relation to the Commission’s allegations that “there have not been significant advances in the majority of the information presented by the State in relation to the investigations,” the Court reiterates that while the present matter is under consideration by the Commission, it corresponds to that body to consider the aspects relative to the results of investigations and to take the measures that it deems pertinent, according to its authority. 30. Taking the aforementioned into account, in the framework of the present provisional measures and as it has done in other matters,12 the Court will not consider the effectiveness of the investigations which have been carried out or the alleged lack of due diligence; nor will it analyze the alleged results of such investigations. This does not absolve the State of its obligation to investigate the charges that sustain the present measures, in terms of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, which establishes the general obligations that State Parties have with respect to the rights and liberties enshrined therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. * * * 31. Regarding the State’s obligation to make all efforts to provide for the participation of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representative in the planning and implementation of the protective measures, and its general obligation to keep them informed regarding the advance of the measures ordered by the Tribunal (first operative paragraph of the Order of February 6, 2008), the State reported that while “it is true that until the present date it has not been possible to re-establish the channels of communication that permit sustained dialogue with the beneficiaries and petitioners of the present measures,” it reiterated its willingness to work in cooperation in the monitoring of the same. In this respect, during the public hearing the State signaled that “it is impossible to comply with the orders of the […] Court in relation to protection and investigations, without having dialogue with the beneficiaries and their representatives.” Additionally, the State indicated that it has “the 11 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of the CASA Foundation. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, considering seventeenth; Matter of the Newspapers "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia". Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2008, Considering thirty-six; and Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, Considering fifteenth. 12 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering seventeenth; Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering sixtheenth; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2009, Considering thirtysecond.