3 3. That the Court has indicated that provisional measures have two functions: one preventive and the other protective.2 The preventive function of provisional measures relates to the framework of international litigation. In this regard, the object and purpose of these measures is to preserve any rights that may be at risk until the dispute has been settled. Their aim is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on merits and, thus, to avoid any harm to the rights in dispute that could impair or annul the effet utile of the final decision. Thus, provisional measures allow the State in question to comply with the final decision and, if applicable, proceed to make the reparations ordered.3 Regarding the protective function of provisional measures, the Court has indicated that provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature, because they protect human rights inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons.4 4. That no case is being processed before the Inter-American Commission concerning this matter (supra Having Seen paragraph 2). Consequently, the only appropriate analysis is limited to the protective dimension of the provisional measures; this is the criterion according to which the Court must verify the existence of the highest risk to life and personal integrity. Given that no litigation exists on this matter, the Court must ensure that the provisional measures are not denatured by being used to achieve a purpose that should be achieved through litigation. 1. Regarding the measures of protection implemented 5. That, regarding the implementation of the measures of protection ordered by the Court, in its latest communication the State indicated that the Twenty-ninth Court of First Instance with Monitoring Functions of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas had appointed an official attached to the Metropolitan Police to “carry out the protection of the COFAVIC offices, in accordance with the Police Surveillance and Protection mechanism.” 6. That the representatives indicated that, in 2008, “the police protection had been interrupted on three occasions” and that “the unreliability in complying with it persists”; that the protection offered to the COFAVIC offices “is limited to the hours of 9.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. from Monday to Friday with no protection at weekends,” and that “the motorized units are extremely dilapidated”; consequently, COFAVIC has regularly assumed the expenses resulting from their breakdown.” 7. That the Commission indicated that “maintenance of the equipment of the State’s security units should not impose a financial burden on those benefiting from the State’s protection, because this corresponds exclusively to the State.” 8. That the Court has verified that, even though problems exist, a protection measure for the COFAVIC offices is currently being implemented. 2 Cf. Matter of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of April 30, 2009, fifth considering paragraph; Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Case of López Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, third considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, seventh considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 3, eighth considering paragraph.