Mrs. Martínez Martínez, where she and her family were allegedly threatened with a firearm; b) that a complaint was filed with the authorities regarding these actions, for the crimes of abuse of authority, raiding premises, psychological torture and death threats, c) that subsequently, Mrs. Martínez Martínez had been kidnapped, tortured, raped and threatened with death by strangers and, in addition, that she and her family had suffered further threats, harassment and stalking that placed their lives and personal integrity at risk, even after the precautionary measures were granted; d) that the State has begun an investigation into the events of November 8, 2009, and e) that the State also opened an inquiry to shed light on the facts concerning the alleged threats, harassment, and stalking, and from the information provided thus far, the State has not yet managed to identify and effectively respond to the source of the risk facing the petitioners. 11. In this regard, the Court finds that the analysis of the facts and arguments of the Inter-American Commission related to points a), b) and d) mentioned in the preceding paragraph correspond to the analysis of a potential contentious case in the event that it should occur. The Court has already held that a ruling on the merits is made by way of a judgment within the proceedings of a contentious case submitted before the Court and not through the processing of provisional measures. 8 Consequently, the Court shall not take into account the aforementioned arguments given that it is unable to consider elements directly related to the merits of this matter as noted previously. 1) Regarding the existence of alleged threats, harassment and stalking 12. In its request for provisional measures the Inter-American Commission noted that Margarita Martínez Martínez and Adolfo Guzmán Ordaz and their children Ada Saraí Martínez and Eduardo Abel León “have been subjected to constant threats every so often –even months apart—since November 2009 and at least until October 2011,” even after the granting of precautionary measures. In particular, it stated that on November 24, 2010, Mrs. Martínez Martínez was intercepted by two strangers who handed her a note containing a threat addressed to the Director of the Center Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas, warning that the lives of the members of the Martínez family were in the Director’s hands. On this occasion, Mrs. Martínez Martínez was not accompanied by a bodyguard. The Commission also pointed out that during the months of February, March, August, September and October 2011, Mrs. Martínez Martínez and her family were allegedly subjected to stalking and threats. Specifically, on October 20, 2011, Mrs. Martínez Martínez received another death threat at her home (supra Having Seen para. 4(k)) despite the fact that she had moved to another city, and three days earlier, on October 17, 2011, one of her bodyguards had resigned. This increased the petitioners’ fear of continuing to denounce the incidents of which they had been victims. 13. In response to the Court’s request of December 14, 2011, on January 16, 2012, the Commission presented its observations to the State’s report, arguing that “the affirmation made by the State of Mexico that since October 2011 it has not received news of any threats or harassment, lacks a comprehensive analysis of the situation experienced by the potential beneficiaries.” Specifically, it noted that the representatives “have found that the threats and harassment are directly related to the public appearances of the [human rights] defenders Martínez [Martínez] and Guzmán [Ordaz]. However, from the information provided by the State, it is not clear that the State has been able to identify and effectively respond to the source of the risk facing the potential beneficiaries, which has resulted, 8 Cf. Matter of James et al., supra note 6, Considering paragraph 6 and Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó, supra note 6, Considering paragraph 5. 12