9 years in order to be implemented" which is "a little late that, up to the present, the State has not been able to determine who had participated, if these groups participated in fact, in the attacks against the members of the Meta Committee.” 32. The Commission pointed out that it is unknown “which is the situation” of the investigations conducted in the instant case. It indicated that “there are files”, “there are proceedings in which no step has been taken" and requested "information proving some progress.” It further alleged that “there are, at least, three more elements which have not been informed”: “the improper use of the electronic mail of the Police in a message sent to Mrs. Rey”, “the intelligence strategy, referred to in this case, in relation to the DAS activities” and the “incident against Islena Rey.” 33. Regarding the obligation to investigate the facts reported that gave rise to these measures, 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 consequence, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is specially obliged to guarantee the rights of the people in situation of risk and must expedite the investigation necessary to shed light on the facts and, if applicable, punish the responsible.7 For such investigation, the State in question must make its best efforts to determine all the facts surrounded the threat and how they were expressed; to determine whether there exist a pattern of threats against the beneficiary or the group or entity to which he belong; to determine the purpose or end of the threat and to determine who are responsible for the threat and, if applicable, punish them. 34. The Court takes note of the commitment made by the State at the public hearing and request the forwarding of information in that respect, in the next report on the implementation of these provisional measures. Moreover, the Tribunal recalls8 that an alleged lack of investigation from the State does not constitute, per se, circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency that calls for the continuance of provisional measures. In addition, the duty to investigate, sometimes, may extend in time, during which the threat or risk may not necessarily be extreme or 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.9 In sum, the noncompliance with the duty to investigate is not per se a sufficient reason to maintain the provisional measures. 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures Regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, considering clause three and Matter of "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia" Newspapers. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2008, Considering Clause thirty-nine. 8 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, of July 6, 2009; Considering clause twenty-four. 9 Cf. Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, considering clause fourteen; and Case of the Members of the Community Studies and Psychological Action (ECAP), Case of Plan of Sánchez Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009; considering clause sixteen and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 8, considering clause twenty-four.