20 45. That considering the State’s argument, it falls upon the Tribunal to determine whether there exist a duplication of proceedings to monitor the implementation of the protective measures ordered in favor of a group of people who are, at the same time, victims of human rights violations or beneficiaries of reparations, according to what was declared in the Judgment, and in some cases, also beneficiaries of provisional measures. The Court notes that the last terms of operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment are, in effect, similar to the terms of the provisional measures ordered in this case, which could have a bearing on the procedure or means by which the execution and implementation of the protective measures are monitored. 46. That Article 1(1) of the Convention embodies the general duty of States Parties to respect the rights and liberties recognized in said treaty and to ensure to all persons subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. In accordance with that rule, it is a responsibility of States to adopt security measures to protect all persons under its jurisdiction, especially to preserve the life and integrity of those people whose rights could be threatened. 11 This duty is even more evident in connection with persons involved in proceedings before the bodies responsible for protection under the American Convention, 12 all the more if there are victims, next-of-kin or witnesses who rendered a statement before the Court regarding a case. 47. That based on the foregoing, in the paragraph 280 of the Judgment, the Court ordered the State to take special measures to guarantee the life, safety and security of those who made statements before the Court and their families, as well as provide them with all necessary protection from any person, bearing in mind the circumstances of the instant case and in view of the fact that most of the victims’ next-of-kin who rendered statements before the Tribunal and notary public, expressed their fear of reprisals against them. 48. That after the Judgment, some of the beneficiaries of the compensatory amounts ordered therein informed the Tribunal that they were subjected to acts of threat and harassment. The Tribunal considered that these persons and their family groups were prima facie in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, since their lives and personal integrities were threatened and in serious danger due to the statements rendered during the proceeding before this Tribunal and the compensatory amounts paid to them. Therefore, the Court ordered, in order to avoid irreparable damage to people, provisional measures in favor of Wilmar Rodríguez Quintero and Yimmy Efraín Rodríguez Quintero and their next-of-kin, namely: Nubia Saravia, wife of Yimmy Rodríguez Quintero; Karen Dayana Rodríguez Saravia, and Valeria Rodríguez Saravia, both daughters of Yimmy Rodríguez Quintero; William Rodríguez Quintero, brother of Wilmar and Yimmy Rodríguez Quintero; and Jhon Carlos Rodríguez Quintero, nephew of Wilmar and Yimmy Rodríguez Quintero; of 11 Cf. Case of Luisiana Rios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of September 8, 2004; Considering Clause six. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica") Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of February 9, 2006, Considering clause 9; Matter of Colotenango Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 12, 2007, considering clause 4. 12 Cf. Case of Luisiana Ríos et al., supra note 11, considering clause 6; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, considering clause 44 and Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Provisional Measures regarding Nicaragua. Order of the Court of November 26, 2007, Considering clause 4.