6 system enshrined in the Convention, ineffective.7 If the Court decides to lift the provisional measures for this reason, the State, in compliance with its duty to safeguard human rights (infra Considering clause 24), will have to maintain the protective measures that it may have adopted, and that were deemed effective by the Court, for as long as the circumstances so require. * ** 22. That the representatives believe that another factor that the Court should take into account when deciding whether or not to lift the provisional measures is the “elucidation of the facts that led to establish, prima facie, that risks existed.” 23. That threats usually have a purpose and a form of expression. The purpose is the aim pursued by the perpetrator of threats. The form of expression is the mechanism through which threats reach their intended recipients. Both the purpose and the form of expression determine the type of investigation and the relevant strategies for analysis. 24. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general duty of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms.8 Consequently, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State has a special duty to guarantee the rights of persons who are at risk and to set in motion such investigations as may be necessary to elucidate the facts, followed by such consequences as the applicable legislation may set forth. Regarding investigations, the State concerned ought to use its best efforts to establish all the facts that surrounded the threat and its forms of expression; to determine whether there exists a pattern of threats against the beneficiary or the group or entity to which they belong; to establish the purpose or aim of the threat; to ascertain who is behind the threat and, if appropriate, to punish them. Nevertheless, the Court has pointed out that an alleged failure to investigate by a State does not necessarily constitute a situation of extreme gravity and urgency warranting the maintenance of the provisional measures. Furthermore, on certain occasions, the duty to investigate may take a considerable amount of time, during which the threat or risk may cease to be of an extreme and urgent nature. Finally, the Court has observed that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings related to the facts that gave rise to the provisional measures is germane to the examination of the merits of the case.9 In short, noncompliance with the duty to investigate, while reproachable, does not in and of itself provide enough grounds to maintain the provisional measures. It is for the beneficiaries 7 Cfr. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 20, 2003, considering clause thirteen; Matter of Marta Colomina. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 4, 2006, considering clause eleven, and Case of Raxcacó-Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of February 2, 2007, considering clause twelve. 8 Cfr. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, considering clause three; 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 clause twenty-two, and Matter of Fernández-Ortega et al., supra note 4, considering clause four. 9 Cfr. Matter of Pilar Noriega-García et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, considering clause fourteen; Matter of Leonel Rivero et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, considering clause eighteen, and Matter of Luis Uzcátegui, supra note 5, considering clause thirty-one.