their obstruction or for the difficulties in their total execution is bipolar or bilateral, of those protected [...].” i) “The State has been placed in the need to defend itself, [because] on many occasions false facts have been attributed to the President of the Republic, the Ministers or other representative of the State, facts that are not true, [and] the President himself or some Ministers have had to come out and say ‘that is not true’, and even demonstrate the falsity of what was attributed to them […]”. j) “Dogmatically, [it is not possible] to accept […] that the State of Venezuela did not comply with the provisional measures requested by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights […]”. “Although it is true that, perhaps, the measures requested by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have not been complied with one hundred per cent, the average is not negative, the State of Venezuela has had adequate intention of complying with those measures.” k) The State is “very willing to comply with the provisional measures […], as well as with any other measures in accordance with article 23 of [the] Constitution [of the Bolivarian Republic], […] and with article 31 that […] establishes the obligation, as members of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights to comply with those measures.” 18. The documents presented by the State during the public hearing held on February 17, 2003, which consist of “documents relating to the measures taken by the prosecutors appointed to investigate the case and also measures taken by the Venezuelan Ministry of the Interior and Justice, in relation to the Luisiana Ríos et al. case.” CONSIDERING: 1. That the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977, and, in accordance with its Article 62, accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters it has under consideration, adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, and in cases not yet submitted to its consideration, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. That, in the terms of Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: At any stage of the proceeding involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...]