against her that led to the provisional measures, and the case before the Court of Mrs. Fernández Ortega, and the threats that she and her defenders suffer, without sufficient information regarding "whether the investigations of the preliminary investigation are linked with the investigation into the facts of the case or regarding possible lines of investigation.” It also emphasized the importance of investigating the threats made in a comprehensive manner, considering that “the implementation of [the] measures of protection, together with the investigation to determine the source of the risk in which the beneficiaries are in, and the effective punishment, are crucial factors to prevent the occurrence of more irreparable harm.” It stressed that “the impunity in which the case remains [regarding the rape of Mr. Rosendo Cantu], including the failure to forward the case to the ordinary jurisdiction, is one of the elements that has not allowed for substantial progress regarding the elimination of risk factors for the beneficiaries [...] through the administration of justice.” It affirmed that “it is not clear from the information provided by the State whether it is necessary that the beneficiaries have to go to ratify the expert report of the psychologist or whether it is enough that said professional ratifies it.” 31. The Court first notes that the representatives and the Commission refer in this aspect both to the investigation of the events that led to the adoption of provisional measures, as well as to the investigation of the facts related to the case on the merits resolved by the Court through the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, issued on August 31, 2010 in the case of Rosendo Cantú et al. In this regard, and notwithstanding any relationship that might exist between the two procedures, the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigation carried out domestically on the facts related to this Judgment, as well as the intervention of the ordinary criminal courts, should be done under the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. 32. In relation to the obligation to investigate the facts in the complaint that resulted in the present measures, the Court recalls that Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes that the State has the general obligation to respect the rights and liberties recognized therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to each person subject to its jurisdiction. As a consequence, independent of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is especially obligated to guarantee the rights of the persons in situations of risk and must promote the necessary investigations in order to clarify the facts, and where necessary, punish those responsible.11 Nevertheless, this Court has noted that the analysis of the effectiveness of investigations and proceedings concerning the facts that motivate the provisional measures should be done in the examination of the merits of the case. 12 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering Clause 3; Matter of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, Considering Clause 21, and Matter of the Mapiripán Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 1, 2011, Considering Clause 32. 12 Cf. Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional Measures regarding México. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering Clause 24; Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Republic Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 22, 2011, Considering Clause 42, and Matter of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra note 11, Considering Clause 24. 11