6 consideration. With regard to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. That, according to Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: 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 regard to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 8. In its Annual Report to the General Assembly, the Court shall include a statement concerning the provisional measures ordered during the period covered by the report. If those measures have not been duly implemented, the Court shall make such recommendations as it deems appropriate. 4. That Article (1)1 of the Convention establishes the obligation of 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. Hence, the State is obliged to adopt all necessary measures to preserve the life and personal integrity of those persons whose rights may be in jeopardy. This obligation is even more evident with regard to those involved in proceedings before the supervisory organs of the American Convention.2 5. That the States Parties to the Convention must comply with its provisions in good faith, which corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State (pacta sunt servanda).3 Furthermore, they must guarantee the inherent effects of those provisions (effet utile).4 6. That, according to the orders of the Court and of its President, issued from March to December 2003 (supra having seen paragraphs 2, 9 and 10), Haiti has had the obligation to adopt all necessary measures of protection to preserve the life and personal integrity of Lysias Fleury, as well as to investigate the facts that gave rise to these provisional measures, allow the beneficiary to take part in their planning and implementation, and provide the Court with the pertinent information. 7. That, since the order of December 2, 2003, was issued, the State has only submitted two communications to the Court, both received on March 11, 2004 (supra having seen paragraph 12), in which the State merely acknowledged receipt of the Court’s 2 Cf. Matter of Colotenango, Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Cf., among others, Matter of Colotenango, Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, fifth considering paragraph; Matter of Adrián Meléndez Quijano et al. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 12, 2007, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó. Provisional measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, fifth considering paragraph. 4 Cf., among others, Matter of Colotenango, Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, fifth considering paragraph; Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, para. 37; Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 38, para. 87. See also Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 171, and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 205.