4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That, in general, the purpose of provisional measures in domestic legal systems (internal procedural law) is to protect the rights of the parties in dispute, ensuring that the judgment on merits is not prejudiced by their actions pendente lite. 6. That the purpose of urgent and provisional measures in international human rights law goes further because, in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 7. That the Court has already established in its order of November 27, 2002, that the facts described by the Commission in its request demonstrated prima facie the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency for the lives and safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe1. 8. That, in view of the facts described in the public hearing (supra sixteenth and seventeenth having seen paragraphs) and of the testimony presented (supra fourteenth and fifteenth having seen paragraphs), the Court considers it necessary to reiterate to Venezuela that it is the State’s responsibility to adopt security measures to protect all persons who are subject to its jurisdiction and this obligations is even more evident in relation to those who are involved in proceedings before the organs of protection of the American Convention. 9. That Venezuela has the obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures in favor of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe, because the State has the obligation to combat that situation by all available legal means, since impunity promotes the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin2. 10. That States must comply with the obligations they assume when they accede to conventions in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) as stipulated in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which codifies a basic principle of general international law when it states that: [a] party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law to justify for its failure to perform a treaty.[...] THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 1 Cf. Luisiana Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002, fifth considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 64; Bámaca Velásquez case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 211 and Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 170.