6 give rise to provisional measures, the Court undermines its own capacity to take informed decisions on the continuation of such measures.” 16. That the Inter-American Commission considered that “from the available information, none of the investigations has gone beyond the preliminary stage, and the only one that made any progress culminated in a declaration of a stay of proceedings”; it also indicated that “the State has not complied with this aspect of the provisional measures and it hoped that, in its next reports, it would provide details of the measures it was taking to elucidate the facts, identify those responsible and, if applicable, impose the corresponding sanctions.” 17. 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. Consequently, irrespective of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is specifically obliged to ensure the rights of people who are at risk and must promote the investigations needed to clarify the facts and to implement the consequences established by the pertinent laws.6 With regard to this investigation, the State in question must make every effort to determine all the facts concerning the threat and the form it took; to determine whether there has been a pattern of threats against the beneficiary or the group or entity to which the beneficiary belongs; to determine the purpose or object of the threat; to determine the individual or individuals behind the threat and, if applicable, to punish them. Nevertheless, the Court has indicated that an alleged lack of investigation by a State does not necessarily constitute a circumstance of extreme gravity and urgency that merits maintaining the 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. Lastly, the Court has indicated that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations and procedures relating to the facts that gave rise to the provisional measures corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case.7 In brief, although failure to comply with the obligation to investigate is reproachable, it is not in itself a sufficient reason to maintain the provisional measures. The beneficiaries and the Commission must submit arguments and prove that this absence of investigation contributes to or is the cause of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to the specific beneficiary. 18. That, in this matter, the situation of extreme gravity experienced by the beneficiaries gave rise to the order to open investigations. Once these commenced, any problems relating to the negligence or ineffectiveness of the investigations must be addressed by litigation, as the representative have acknowledged. As the Court will examine below, the representatives could be correct when they indicate that, owing to the absence or ineffectiveness of an investigation, it is not possible to know for sure whether the danger for an individual persists. However, given the absence of new threats for a reasonable period of time, the fact that an investigation has not produced specific results could be insufficient to conclude that the danger, even assuming it exists, is extremely grave and urgent. In recognition of this, the representatives refer to a series of acts of harassment, and it is 6 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, third considering paragraph; Matter of the “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” Newspapers. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, thirty-ninth considering paragraph, and Case of López Álvarez et al, supra note 2, twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth considering paragraphs. 7 Cf. Matter of Leonel Rivero et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, eighteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Pilar Noriega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, fourteenth considering paragraph.