9 However, the Tribunal points out with concern that despite the fact that said inquiries were started at the beginning of the month of January 2010, from the information provided it cannot be concluded that the actions adopted by state authorities have provided any specific results or positive progress that could lead to determining the whereabouts and current situation of Rocío, Nitza, and José. 12. It is appropriate to recall that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of the States Parties to respect the rights and liberties enshrined therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all people subject to its jurisdiction, which are imposed not only with regard to the State’s power but also with regard to actions of individual third parties.11 The Court has established that “one of the conditions necessary to effectively guarantee the rights to life, humane treatment and personal freedom is compliance with the duty to investigate the violations to the same, which is derived from Article 1(1) of the Convention along with the substantive right that must be protected or guaranteed.”12 13. In this sense, it is necessary to point out that every time there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been submitted to a disappearance, the prompt and immediate action of the prosecuting and judicial authorities ordering timely and necessary measures addressed to the determination of the whereabouts of the victims or the location where they may be detained are indispensable.13 14. The standard of assessment prima facie in a matter and the application of presumptions before the needs of protection have led the Court to order measures on different occasions.14 15. The persons indicated by the Inter-American Commission in its request for provisional measures would be prima facie in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, since their personal freedom, personal integrity, and life would be threatened and in grave risk. Therefore, the Inter-American Court considers that the protection of those people through provisional measures is necessary, in light of that stated in the American Convention. 16. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to recall that when dealing with provisional measures the Court shall consider only and exclusively those arguments that relate directly to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damages to people. Any other fact or argument may only be analyzed and resolved during the 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering Clause number three; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 5, Considering Clause number four; and Case of the La Rochela Masscare. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 19, 2009, Considering Clause number four. 12 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 100; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 253; and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 119. 13 Cf. Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 5, Considering Clause number thirteen; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 134. 14 Cf. inter alia, Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 13, 2006, Considering Clause number sixteen; Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 6, Considering Clause number fourteen, and Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 5, Considering Clause number fifteen.