8 investigations and pointed out the difficulties involved in investigating events which took place in a jail where the witnesses are the very persons kept under custody, who are afraid to give testimony. Additionally, the representatives restated the need for the State to effectively investigate the deaths and reported acts of torture, and highlighted the lack of specific information in that regard in the State’s reports. The Commission pointed out that the State may not transfer the responsibility for the lack of clarification of the events to the inmates. 24. That the Court has stated that the duty to investigate derives from the States’ general duty to guarantee the human rights enshrined in the Convention, that is, the obligation under Article 1(1) of such treaty together with the substantive law which should have been protected or guaranteed.6 The violation of human rights gives rise to the State's duty to investigate. 25. That, additionally, investigating the events and eventually punishing those responsible is key to avoid the repetition of human rights violations, for which the Court has restated in its Orders the State’s obligation to investigate the events which took place at the Urso Branco Prison and gave rise to these measures. 26. That, notwithstanding the State’s duty to investigate such events to guarantee the essential rights to life and to humane treatment, the Court, within the framework of these provisional measures, and as it has decided in other matters,7 it will not consider the effectiveness of the investigations carried out or the alleged negligence of the State in such investigations, inasmuch as it has not declared human rights violations. 27. That such analysis should be carried out when examining the merits of case N. 12,568, currently being heard by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (supra Considering clause N. 21). NOW THEREFORE, 6 Cf. I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C N. 4, para. 177; I/A Court H.R. Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 4, para. 62; and I/A Court H.R. Case of García Prieto et al. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C N. 168, para. 100. 7 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering clause N. 16.