information on possible new incidents of threat or risk in addition to what apparently took place in November of 2010. Therefore, the Court finds it pertinent to ask the representatives and the State to report on the possible situation of risk faced by Mr. Bolivar, making reference where appropriate to specific facts that have taken place since November 2010 that would allow the Court to verify whether Mr. Bolivar is in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and at risk of suffering irreparable damage to his life and personal integrity. 45. At the same time, the Tribunal finds it pertinent to recall that States have a constant and permanent duty to comply with their general obligations as set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention to respect the rights and liberties enshrined in the Convention and to recognize and guarantee the free and full exercise of these rights for all individuals subject to their jurisdiction.25 Likewise, in the Judgment handed down in the case of Torres Millacura et al., the State was given the following order: "that the individuals participating in the investigation [into the facts that took place with regard to Mr. Torres Millacura] - among them, witnesses and relatives of the victims - be provided with all due guarantees of security."26 D) Requests for hearing and for the formation of a "Executive Work Group.” 46. Additionally, the representatives requested through briefs dated July 16, 2008, and April 17 and 27, 2009 (supra Having Seen 3), that a hearing be held in the context of the instant provisional measures. Likewise, in briefs dated October 29, 2008; January 22 and April 21, 2009; and January 2, 2010 (supra Having Seen 3), they requested the formation of an "Executive Work Group” composed of a Commissioner or Judge serving as rapporteur, “the petitioning party, the Argentine State, the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Corps, Alejandro Mejías Fonrouge, Eduardo Arizaga, and the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, among other possible members.” That “Group” would have its headquarters in Comodoro Rivadavia and would be funded by the State in order to "move forward in the design and implementation of [the instant] measures." 47. The State and the Commission did not address this request. 48. This Order clarifies the points on which there is disagreement with regard to the implementation and validity of the provisional measures. Therefore, the Tribunal does not find it necessary for the moment to hold a hearing in the context of the processing of the instant measures. In the same way, the implementation of the provisional measures in coordination with representatives constitutes a duty of the State. For this reason, the eventual forming of a "Executive Work Group" would be the State's decision. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 25 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering 3, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru, supra footnote 1, Considering 11. 26 Cf. Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra footnote 4, para. 164, b). 14