6 1. That Guatemala is a State party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction under Article 62 of the American Convention on March 9, 1987. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters it does not yet have under consideration, adopt the provisional measures it deems pertinent when the Commission so requests. 3. That Article 1(1) of the Convention provides that States parties undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights; the State is, therefore, duty-bound to adopt those measures necessary to preserve the life and integrity of any person whose rights may be threatened. This duty is all the more obvious in the case of persons associated with cases filed with bodies charged with ensuring observance of the American Convention. 4. That under Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: 1. At any stage of the proceedings 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. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. 5. That the States parties to the Convention must fulfill their conventional obligations in good faith, which is a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of States (pacta sunt servanda).1 They must also guarantee the effects of such provisions (effet utile).2 6. That by virtue of the Court’s Orders of June 22, 1994, April 16, 1997, September 19, 1997, November 27, 1998, June 3, 1999 and February 2, 2000, the State has an obligation to take the measures of protection necessary to preserve the life and integrity of the beneficiaries of the measures (supra, paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 under “Having Seen”). The Commission, for its part, has the duty to send its comments on the measures taken by the State, within six weeks of receiving the corresponding report. 7. That the Court has repeatedly held that the duty to investigate must be carried out seriously and not as a mere formality destined to be unfruitful.3 1 Cfr., inter alia, Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Compliance with Judgment, Decision of November 17, 1999. Series C. No. 59, Consideranda 4; Loayza Tamayo Case. Compliance with Judgment, Decision of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 60, Consideranda 7; and James, Briggs, Noel, García and Bethel Cases. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998. Series E No. 2, Consideranda 6. 2 Cf., inter alia, Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C. No. 54, par. 37; and Constitutional Court Case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C. No. 55, par. 36.