6 CONSIDERING: 1. That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that “in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” at the request of the Commission, the Court may adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters that are not yet submitted to its consideration 3. That, in this regard, 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. [...] 6. The beneficiaries of urgent measures or provisional measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention embodies the general obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 5. That, under international human rights law, in addition to their preventive nature in that they preserve a juridical situation, the purpose of provisional measures is essentially preventive, since they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.1 6. That, the merits of the case that gave rise to these provisional measures are not being considered by the Court and that the adoption of provisional measures does not imply a decision on the merits of the dispute that exists between the petitioners and the State. By adopting provisional measures, the Court is merely exercising its mandate under the Convention in cases of extreme gravity and urgency that require measures of protection to avoid irreparable damage to persons.2 1 Cf. the case of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, fourth considering paragraph; the the case of Capital Region Yare I and Yare II Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, fifth considering paragraph; and the case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, fifth considering paragraph. 2 Cf. the case of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph; the case of the Capital Region Yare I and Yare II Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, seventh considering paragraph; and the case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph.