stalking continue, nor has it contradicted the information provided by the State regarding the protective measures adopted, although it did mention the inadequacy of some of the measures adopted (supra Having seen paras. 4.a, 4.j, 5.a and 14). 24. Likewise, the Court notes that the State has offered several protective and security measures to the petitioners as specific mechanisms to protect their lives and personal integrity, in the context of the precautionary measures, and has expressed its willingness to implement those measures in the instant case. In this regard, the State pointed out that “with the prior consent of the petitioners and their representatives, on December 1, [2011], it held a follow-up meeting on the implementation of the [...] precautionary measures” granted by the Commission, with a view to improving them to ensure [the] security and protection” of the petitioners, thereby preventing irreparable harm to them. 25. The State also referred to the measures it has implemented, including the protective measure of accompaniment or escort provided by eight security guards, which is currently being carried out by agents of the Secretariat for Public Safety and Protection of the state of Chiapas; the installment of another closed circuit monitoring device in the petitioners’ home and the two emergency numbers of the Federal Police of San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas provided to the beneficiaries. The State also indicated that “the Government Secretariat of Chiapas together with the City Council of San Cristóbal de las Casas will take the necessary steps to restore the street lightning service.” The State also mentioned that efforts are being made to correct the failings cited by the Commission in the implementation of the protective measures. Finally, it mentioned that the State and the representatives had agreed that, at the next meeting, “they [would] reach agreement on [...] a protocol for the implementation of the escort measure, to be drawn up by the Secretariat for Public Safety and Protection of Chiapas.” At the same time, the State reported that it had begun investigations related to the facts denounced. 26. Although there are elements to determine that the alleged threats, harassment and stalking against Margarita Martínez Martínez, Adolfo Guzmán Ordaz and the children Ada Saraí Martínez Martínez and Eduardo Abel León Martínez constitute situations of extreme gravity and urgency, as well as risk, the State has provided information on the specific mechanisms it has adopted in the context of the precautionary measures in response to such situations, and is therefore implementing protection measures in favor of the petitioners, which it presumably will continue to provide in order to guarantee their right to life and personal integrity. Therefore, and bearing in mind that since October 20, 2011 there have been no reports of new incidents affecting the petitioners, the Court considers that at present it is not necessary to order provisional measures. 27. Regarding the Commission’s argument that there has been no progress in the investigation into the alleged threats, harassment and stalking, the Court reiterates that, according to its case law, the analysis of the effectiveness of investigations and proceedings regarding the facts that give rise to the provisional measures forms part of the examination of the merits of the case9, and therefore it is not up to the Court to examine the effectiveness of the investigations carried out, or the alleged negligence of the State in those investigations. 9 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 3, 2007, Considering paragraph 23, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 25, 2011, Considering paragraph 21. 15