Convention, the aforementioned provision 63(2) is found after the provisions of Articles 61 and 62, which refer to said jurisdiction, and before Article 64, which refers to advisory jurisdiction, from which it becomes evident that the first three rules comprise a whole. The same occurs with the Court’s Rules of Procedure, where the provisional measures are addressed in Article 27 thereof, i.e. in Title II “Procedure.” 13.- Furthermore, it should be recalled that Article 62(3) of the Convention, states: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” 14. - Therefore, the harmonious interpretation of the aforementioned conventional rules lead to the conclusion that “the matters before” the Court, and the scope within which provisional measures may be ordered, can be no other than “case[s] concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention brought before it” in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, that is, those in which it delivers justice, and those on which it rules. 15. - Thus, it should be borne in mind, firstly, that, according to its ordinary meaning10, a meaning of the word to “know” is to “[h] ear a matter with legitimate authority to do so”11. The example provided in this regard is “[t]he judge hearing the case”12. Therefore, it can be said that the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the “case” that is “brought” before it, consists of deciding or ruling on whether the provisions of the Convention have been interpreted and applied therein. This is what the Court hears. Therefore, the authority of the Court to “hear” a contentious case translates as “ruling on it.” 15.- Secondly, the aforementioned theory that provisional measures are in order, as a general rule, during the processing of a contentious case, is reinforced by the fact that the words “matters” and “cases” must be understood, for the purposes indicated, as synonymous. And this is so, firstly because of the common meaning of such terms.13 While among the meanings of the term “matter” are “[t]he material in question” and the “case”14, with regard to the latter it states that “[m]atter concerned or proposed to consult someone and request their opinion” and “[a]ny matters investigated by the police or that are settled at trial before the courts.”15 indicated in Article 2 of the Court’s Statute. And perhaps for this reason, the Court’s Rules of Procedure refer to Title II as “Procedure” and Title III as “Advisory Opinions”. 10 Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention. 11 Dictionary of the Spanish Language, Real Academia Española, 22nd Edition, Madrid, Spain, 2001. 12 Idem. 13 Idem. 14 Idem. 15 Idem. 4