2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes 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.” This provision is also regulated in Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.2 3. According to Article 63(2) of the Convention, the State is obliged to adopt the provisional measures ordered by the Court, because a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, has indicated that States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).3 4. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not merely preventive, in that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather they are essentially protective, since they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provided that 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.4 1. Regarding the representation of the beneficiaries 5. As indicated (supra having seen paragraph 4), on July 6, 2012, CEJIL concluded its role as representative of the beneficiaries of these measures. Consequently, the Secretariat of the Court, on the instructions of the President, asked the beneficiaries of the measures to specify how they would exercise their representation and the corresponding contact information. The only beneficiaries who have responded to the Court’s requests are Karen Fischer, who said she would represent herself and her daughter, Daniela Carpio Fischer, and Abraham Méndez, who said that he would represent himself. 6. The Court has emphasized the particular importance of the observations of the beneficiaries’ representatives on the information provided by the State in the proceedings on the implementation of provisional measures. These observations are essential for the assessment of implementation, taking into account the gravity of the situation and the specific circumstances of the risk to the beneficiaries.5 However, in this case, despite several communications addressed to them by the Court, most beneficiaries have not provided information on the current situation of the implementation of the provisional measures, how they will be represented before the Court, and whether or not the situation persists of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable harm to them. This omission 2 2009. The Court’s Rules of Procedure adopted at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 3 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 28, 2012, second considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 26,, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, seventeenth considering paragraph. 3