7. - To annul the provisional measures ordered in this case, without detriment to which the State must comply with the general and permanent obligation to protect the beneficiaries of the proceedings as well as the obligation to guarantee their enjoyment of the rights violated and to prevent irreparable damage caused by said violations, all this under the terms of paragraph * of this Judgment.” 4.- In relation to the aforementioned proposals, it is useful to recall that the Judgment delivered in the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, (Merits and Reparations), of June 27, 2012, stated: “G. Provisional measures 340. Provisional measures were ordered from the time this case was under consideration by the Inter-American Commission (supra para. 5), for the purpose of protecting the lives and integrity of the members of the Sarayaku Community through a series of actions to be implemented by the State. The protection ordered was intended to prevent, inter alia, the thwarting of potential reparations that the Court might order in its favor. For the purpose of assessing the information contained in the provisional measures file (supra para. 48), unlike in most other cases, the particular group of beneficiaries of such measures of protection are identical to the beneficiaries of the measures of reparations ordered in this Judgment on merits and reparations. In other words, the duty to protect the rights to life and personal integrity of the members of the Sarayaku People, initially set out in the orders for provisional measures, are, hereafter, covered by the reparations ordered in this Judgment, which must be complied with from the moment the State receives legal notice thereof. Thus, given the special nature of the present case, the State’s obligations within the provisional measures framework, are replaced by the measures ordered in this Judgment and, therefore, their implementation and enforcement shall be subject to the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment instead of the provisional measures.4 Consequently, the provisional measures no longer have any effect.” 5. - And, therefore, said Ruling ordered in one of its operative paragraphs, that: “10. The provisional measures ordered in this case have been annulled under the terms of paragraph 340 of the Judgment.” 6. – As can be ascertained, the proposals formulated in this case are quite similar to decision taken by the Court just two months ago in the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku V. Ecuador. 7. - The Court’s decision on this occasion obliges me to reiterate my position regarding the adoption of provisional measures5, given that, having issued the Judgment on 4 In similar vein, Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C N. 126, operative paragraph 14. See also relevant decisions in the cases of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, operative paragraph 15. In addition, see Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 26, 2007, considering paragraphs 10 and 11; and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of February 2, 2007, considering paragraphs 8 to 21. 5 This position was expressed both in the Dissenting Opinions issued on July 15, 2011 regarding the Orders of the Court related to the “Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia, Case of Gutiérrez Soler V. Colombia,” June 30, 2011, the “Provisional Measures regarding the United Mexican States, the Case of 2