14 ascertaining the truth of the matters alleged.25 Furthermore, depending on the right that is found to be in jeopardy or the violation of which is alleged, the investigation must seek the prosecution, capture, trial, and eventual punishment of all those responsible, especially when State agents are or may be involved.26 26. The Court insists that the adoption of certain protective measures on the part of the State is not enough, but rather these measures and their implementation must also be effective such that the risk for the protected persons is abated.27 For its part, the State is especially obligated to guarantee the rights of the persons at risk and must promote those investigations necessary to clarify the facts, followed by the appropriate lawful consequences.28 27. The prima facie standard for assessing a case and the application of presumptions in the face of needs for protection have led the President and the Court to order provisional measures on several occasions.29 28. The Tribunal views the lack of concrete results on the part of State authorities in determining what actually happened to the beneficiaries, their whereabouts, and their present conditions as permitting the presumption that their rights are at risk of being violated. For this reason, they find themselves in a prima facie situation of extreme gravity, urgency, and serious risk. The irreparable character of the harm that could result to their rights in the face of this grave and urgent situation is evident. The situation of a disappearance constitutes a serious threat to the right to personal freedom, humane treatment, and life, which are rights of a fundamental nature that the Court has the duty to protect when the circumstances established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention are present. 29. Consequently, the Inter-American Court finds it necessary to maintain the present measures in place in favor of the beneficiaries such that the State continue to take all steps that may be necessary to ascertain the whereabouts and present situation of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera. II. Regarding the request to expand present provisional measures in favor of certain family members and representatives of the beneficiaries 25 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. para. 177; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 24, para. 117; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 19, para. 155 26 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 24, para. 143; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 24, para. 117; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 19, para. 155. 27 Cf. Matter of Juan Almonte Herrera et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 24, 2010, Considering clause sixteen. 28 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering clause three; Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering clause twenty-seven; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, Considering clause forty-four. 29 Cf. inter alia, Matter of the 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 sixteen; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al, supra note 8, Considering clause fourteen; and Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility "Tocorón Prison", supra note 2, Considering clause fourteen.