5 success[,] for which it will [be] informing [the Court] of the advances.” Also, it admitted its responsibility because it had not produced a sufficient advance in the investigations and promised to negotiate the internal coordination necessary that will permit progress of the same. In this respect, it did not refer specifically to the actual state of the investigation of the threats and harassments suffered by the beneficiaries. 13. That for its part, the representatives reiterated that the investigations ordered in the Judgment of Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, issued by the Court on November 20, 2007, have not advanced, the situation of risk will continue regardless that in the last few months no threats have occurred. 14. That the Commission agreed with the representatives that a situation of risk of the beneficiaries will continue, so that “there is a relationship between the investigation and the movement of the case […] with the threats[,] because each time that […] the case progresses a little on the national level or the international level, a new threat is produced,” for which it considered it reasonable and necessary that the provisional measures be maintained. 15. That the Tribunal notes that the diligences that have been advanced in the investigation are not sufficient in order to determine the origin of the telephone calls that have constituted the acts of threats and harassment against the beneficiaries (supra Considering 9). In this respect, the Court considers that, independently of the existence of the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal in the present case, the State has the constant and permanent duty to fulfill the general obligations that correspond to it under Article 1(1) of the American Convention to respect the rights and liberties recognized in it and to guarantee their free and full exercise to each person subject to its jurisdiction.5 * * * 16. Regarding Mr. Roberto Burgos Viale and Ms. Matilde Guadalupe Hernández de Espinoza, the State requested that the provisional measures granted in their favor be lifted, in virtue that the first relinquished them and the second expressed that she was not interested in them. Notwithstanding, the State reiterated its will to grant them if they were ordered by the Court or the beneficiaries required them again. 17. That in this respect, at the public hearing of the matter of “Meléndez Quijano y otros,” the representatives made known to the Tribunal that the beneficiary José Roberto Burgos Viale voluntarily relinquished the measures of security implemented by the State since the month of August 2007, making such relinquishment extensive to the present case. Referring to Ms. Hernandez, the representatives indicated that she is currently an official of the State, for which she has separated from IDHUCA, and as a consequence, from the present case. 5 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, considering third; Matter of Leonel Rivero et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, considering fourth; and Case of Helen Mack Chang et al., supra note 4, considering thirty-first.