different to the provisions of the regulatory texts. Therefore, it should be added that, without a doubt, the facts giving rise to the risk which the provisional measures ordered seek to prevent and the beneficiaries of such measures, are clearly linked to the corresponding contentious case. Finally, it is appropriate to note that even the Court's own decisions regarding provisional measures refer, in their names and therefore perhaps as a result, to the contentious case. II.- Effects of the Judgment. 24. - From the foregoing, it appears, therefore, that if provisional measures are admissible and are decreed in the proceeding before the Court, relating to an act that it hears or rules upon within the sphere of its contentious jurisdiction, these cease once such consideration or trial ends, being replaced, however, by the judgment. 25. - Indeed, the judgment on merits settles the respective contentious case, rules on it, i.e. there is no longer a dispute, since it has been resolved. The first phrase of Article 67 of the American Convention establishes that: “[t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal.” 26. - As a result, the letter g. of paragraph 1 of Article 65 of Rules of the Court adds that: “[L]a judgment shall contain: […] the ruling on the case”. 27. - However, a final order may be a conviction or an acquittal for the State concerned. In the first eventuality, the provision of Article 63(1) of the Convention applies, which states: “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 28.- In this regard, it should be considered that this provision constitutes a whole with the aforementioned Article 63(2), which means, therefore, that the Convention not only expressly regulates the provisional measures as part of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, but that it does so in the sense that they are admissible before the Court delivers a judgment on merits in the case, since if these were ordered later, they would no longer be related to a matter "under its consideration," as set forth in Article 63(2) and within which it determines and states the provisions of Article 63(1). 29.- Similarly, it should be pointed out that if "the" decision or judgment results in the conviction of the State under the terms established in the aforementioned Article 63(1) of the Convention, this latter rule should be understood, then, in accordance with that provided for in the following Article 63(2), which logically leads to the conclusion that when the Court decides or rules that there has been a “violation of a right or freedom protected” by the Convention and, consequently, orders the State to “ensure to the injured party the enjoyment of the right or freedom that was violated,” this necessarily entails an obligation to “prevent irreparable damage to persons,” especially “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency.” 7