4. On July 4, 2009, the Special Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter the “OAS") passed resolution AG/RES. 2 (XXXVII-E/09) ruling to suspend the State of Honduras’ exercise of its right to participate in the OAS. In that sense, the aforementioned ruling of the Special Assembly emphasized the importance of monitoring on subjects of human rights and ruled: To reaffirm that the Republic of Honduras must continue to fulfill its obligations as a member of the Organization, in particular with regard to human rights; and to urge the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to continue to take all necessary measures to protect and defend human rights and fundamental freedoms in Honduras;3 5. In keeping with the provisions set forth in Article 9(e) of the OAS Charter, as well as the terms of the Preamble and articles 8 and 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter itself, the continuity of the international obligations on human rights derived from the American Convention is maintained by virtue of the principle ofpacta sunt servanda and the principles that inspire the collective mechanisms of guarantee established in the OAS charter and the Convention, for which reason those principles are not suspended when a rupture of the institutional order within a State Party has taken place, nor in the event of the occurrences that took place with regard to Honduras. 6. In International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not solely precautionary, in the sense that they preserve the legal situation. Rather they are fundamentally tutelary, in that they protect human rights by seeking to prevent irreparable damage to persons. An order to take measures is applicable as long as it meets the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to persons. In this way, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventative nature.4 7. By virtue of its jurisdiction, in the context of the corresponding provisional measures it falls to the Court to consider only and strictly those arguments directly related to extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damages to persons. Any additional fact or argument can only be examined and resolved during the deliberations on the merits in the adversarial case.5 Considering 5, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated February 2, 2010, Considering 6. 3 OAS, Special General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2 (XXXVII-E/09) of July 4, 2009, operative paragraphs 1 and 2. Available at: http://www.oas.org/CONSEJO/SP/AG/37SGA.asp#docs. 4 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación.” Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering four; Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated February 1, 2010, Considering 7; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra footnote 2, Considering 5. 5 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering 6; Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra footnote 2, Considering 16, and Case of Rosendo Cantú , supra footnote 2, Considering 15.