-3- 5. The application filed with the Court by the Commission on October 31, 2008, regarding case No. 12.645 (Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan). CONSIDERING: 1. That Barbados has been a State Party to the American Convention since November 27, 1982 and, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on June 4, 2000. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. That in relation to this issue, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: [...] 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. 4. That this Court, on several occasions, has interpreted the phrase “case not yet submitted to the Court” as contained in Article 63(2) in fine of the American Convention to imply, at least, the possibility of bringing the issue that is the subject-matter of the 3 provisional measures to the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court. The Court observes that on October 31, 2008, the Commission filed an application with the Court regarding case No. 12.645 (Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan), based on the subject-matter of the request for provisional measures, which is currently being preliminarily reviewed by this Presidency pursuant to Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure. 5. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of the State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms therein recognized and to ensure the full and free exercise of those rights and freedoms to every person subject to their jurisdiction; this duty is particularly compelling in the case of persons currently the subject of a proceeding before the supervisory organs of the American Convention.4 6. That the general purpose of provisional measures, in national legal systems, is to preserve the rights of the parties to a controversy, assuring that, while the litigation continues, the judgment on the merits is not affected by their actions. 7. That the purpose of urgent and provisional measures, in international human rights law, goes beyond a preventive character to protect fundamental rights, in the sense that they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Cf. Matter of García Uribe et al. Provisonal Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Consideration three; Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Consideration five. 3 4 Cf. Case of Raxcaco et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, Considerations four and five; Matter of Boyce and Joseph. Provisional Measures regarding Barbados. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 2005, Considerations four and five.