4 CONSIDERING: 1. Venezuela became a state party to the American Convention on August 9, 1977 and, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides 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. In the terms of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 5. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. 4. The State has not responded to the President’s requirement for information (supra Having Seen 5) pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules. As a party to the American Convention and having recognized the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court, the State assumed its sovereign obligation to comply with orders that may be issued by the Tribunal, or its President when the Court is not in session. This obligation includes the duty to report to the Court within such time frame and frequency as the Court may establish.2 5. The lack of a response on the part of the State does not necessarily imply the granting of provisional measures because, pursuant to the Convention and the Rules, the procedural burden of demonstrating the prima facie elements of extreme gravity and urgency in avoiding irreparable harm falls to the petitioner who, in the present matter, is the Commission. 6. The Tribunal has noted that provisional measures are of a dual character: precautionary and protective.3 The precautionary nature of provisional measures is linked to the framework of international disputes. In that respect, these measures are aimed at preserving the rights potentially at risk until such time as the controversy is resolved. Their object and aim are to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits and thus to prevent harm to the rights at issue, as this could distort or render moot the real 2 Cf. Matter of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause eight; Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering clause fifteen; and Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 1, 2010, Considering clause fifteen. 3 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper). Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering clause four; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 18, 2009, Considering clause five; and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2010, Considering clause three.