12. In this regard, this Court finds it opportune to recall that a supposed absence of investigation by a State does not necessarily constitute, in itself, a circumstance of extreme gravity and urgency that warrants maintaining the provisional measures, 11 unless the lack of investigation is clearly connected to the extremely grave risk or threat to life and personal integrity. In sum, failure to comply with the obligation to investigate is not per se sufficient reason to maintain the provisional measures. 12 In this regard, the Court observes that, when adopting these provisional measures, the absence of an investigation into Mr. Natera Balboa’s whereabouts was clearly connected to the extreme gravity for his life and personal integrity. 13 Likewise, when deciding to maintain them in force in 2011, the absence of information on his whereabouts led to the presumption that he was in grave danger of having his rights to life and personal integrity violated. 14 13. As Mr. Natera Balboa is still disappeared, the grave risk to his life and integrity continues. However, the passage of time in this matter and the lack of progress in the investigations directly affect the practical effects of these provisional measures, whose basic purpose was to avoid irreparable damage to the life and integrity of Mr. Natera Balboa by the prompt action of the national authorities to discover his whereabouts. Even though these measures have been in force for three years and eight months, the Court still has no information on specific progress or results that would allow it to determine clearly what happened to Mr. Natera Balboa or his whereabouts, so that the protection that it was hoped they would provide has been ineffective. Consequently, owing to the particular circumstances of this matter, and taking into account that provisional measures are exceptional in nature and relate to a specific temporary situation so that, given their characteristics, they cannot be perpetuated indefinitely, 15 the Court must order that they be lifted and that the possible violations of the American Convention derived from what happened to Mr. Natera Balboa be examined by means of a contentious case, if the necessary presumptions exist, and not in the context of the provisional measures. 16 14. In addition, it is opportune to recall that the Court has indicated that, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State has a special obligation to ensure the rights of those deprived of their liberty 17 because the State is in a special position of guarantor with regard to the or to those who are in a situation of risk, and to expedite the investigations 11 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 4, twenty-fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Álvarez et al., supra note 5, one hundred and third considering paragraph. 12 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 4, twenty-fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Álvarez et al., supra note 5, one hundred and third considering paragraph. 13 Cf. Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 6, twelfth and thirteenth considering paragraphs. 14 Cf. Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 10, ninth considering paragraph. 15 Cf. Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curbaradó. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, seventieth considering paragraph, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional measures with regard to Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 29, 2012, forty-eighth considering paragraph. 16 Cf. Matter of Children and Adolescents deprived of liberty in the “Tatuapé Complex” of the CASA Foundation. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, seventeenth considering paragraph and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, twenty-ninth considering paragraph. 17 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2007, sixteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Socio-educational Internment Facility. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2012, twenty-first considering paragraph. 6