5 c) In accordance with the laws of Venezuela, on August 7, 2008, the Attorney General’s Office commissioned the Caracas Municipal Police department with serving a summons on Mr. Nieto-Palma, who appeared at their offices on August 19, 2008 to provide his statement regarding the facts under investigation; and d) The Eighth Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area ordered a technical comparison of documents by an expert on the handwritten documents provided by Mr. Nieto-Palma, and it is currently awaiting the results in order to interview persons related to such investigation. The investigation is at the preparation stage, so that once the evidence has been gathered the relevant final order will be issued. 13. That, among other things, the beneficiary stated that: a) The Nineteenth Criminal Court of First Instance, with monitoring functions, of the Metropolitan Areas of Caracas urged the Attorney General’s Office to open an investigation of the records “forged by [m]etropolitan [p]olice officials regarding ‘alleged visits’ to [him] on [O]ctober 24, 2007,” which was entrusted to the Eighth Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of Caracas, at which he appeared on August 15, 2008 to make a statement, and has received no information whatsoever since then; and b) “he feels defenseless, even more so considering that a proceeding has been initiated against the Metropolitan Police department over the forged records, which could lead to [retaliations] against [him] by the police force.” 14. That the Commission stated that it had taken note of the fact that Mr. NietoPalma had claimed to feel defenseless, and that such feeling was later on worsened by the investigation which the Eighth Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of Caracas is currently conducting. Therefore, through various briefs, the Commission expressed that it is necessary for the Court to ask the beneficiary to “submit detailed, objective information evidencing the persistence of the risk that led to the order of protection;” and for it to ask the State to submit information regarding the progress made in the investigation into the attacks and verbal threats made against Mr. Nieto-Palma by the police officers in charge of his protection. 15. That, considering the above statements, the Court notes that an investigation is currently underway over the “alleged forging” of various records of visits by state officials. Such facts derive from alleged irregularities in the context of the implementation of the provisional measures. In this regard, as done in other cases, the Court finds it appropriate to state that the alleged State’s failure to investigate does not necessarily, by itself, amount to a situation of extreme gravity and urgency warranting the maintenance of provisional measures;3 however, any violations of the Convention resulting from the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigations must be analyzed in the relevant contentious case, not in the context of the provisional measures,4 unless the failure to investigate clearly relates to the extreme gravity posed to life and physical integrity. 3 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of March 14, 2001, fourth considering clause; Matter of “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” newspapers, supra note 1, thirty-sixth considering clause; and Matter of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of May 3, 2008, seventh considering clause. Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of Fundação CASA. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil Order of the Court of July 3, 2007, seventeenth considering clause; Matter of Millacura-Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Court of February 4