beneficial for the beneficiaries. Nevertheless, the guardians agreed with the State when they informed that up to the moment the extreme seriousness and urgency to avoid irreparable damages that caused the passing of these measures for every beneficiary do not persist; therefore, they expressed the possibility for them to be rescinded. 16. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations that the States Parties have to respect the right and liberty stated in it and to guarantee its free and ipso jure to every person under its jurisdiction.7 In consequence, apart from the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is specially forced to guarantee the rights of the people in risk and it must promote the necessary investigations to clarify the facts, followed by the consequences that the proper law establishes. For that investigation, the State in point must make its best efforts to determine all the facts that are related to the threat and the way or ways of expression that it had; to determine if a pattern of threats against the beneficiary or the group or the organization that they belong to exists; to determine the objective or purpose of the threat; to determine who is or are behind the threat, and to punish them in any case. Now, the Court has stated that a supposed failure regarding lack of investigation by the State not necessarily constitutes a situation of extreme seriousness and urgency that call for the keeping of the provisional measures. Besides, the duty to investigate can be prolonged in some cases for a significant period of time, time in which the threat or risk not necessarily stays extreme and urgent. Finally, this Court has stated that the analysis of effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings in relation to the facts that lead to the provisional measures correspond to the examination of the merits of the case.8 In addition, the failure to comply the duty is certainly reprehensible, but it is not per se a valid reason to keep the provisional measures. It shall correspond to the beneficiaries and to the Commission to argue and to demonstrate that this lack of investigation contributes or causes the situation of extreme seriousness and urgency to avoid irreparable damages to the particular beneficiary. 17. That according to what was presented; this Court infers that an investigation is being carried nowadays about the supposed threats experienced by Marta Olinda Xocop. However, this Court considers proper to reiterate that a supposed lack of investigation by the State not necessarily constitutes, by itself, a circumstance of extreme seriousness that require the keeping of the provisional measures.9 * * * 18. That the provisional measures have an exceptional characteristic, they are ruled according to the necessities for protection and, once passed, they must always be kept, as long as the Court considers that the basic requirements of the 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering third; Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al.. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, Considering 22, and Matter of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 1, Considering forth. 8 Cf. Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al.. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, Considering Fourteenth; Matter of Leonel Rivero et al.. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008 Considering Eighteenth, and Matter of Luis Uzcátegui, supra note 3, Considering 31. 9 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of March 14, 2001, Considering Fourth; Case of López Álvarez et al.. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, Considering 23; and Matter of Luis Uzcátegui, supra note 3, Considering 31.