7 CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978, and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the 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.” 3. Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure establishes, inter alia, that: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 5. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the President, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. 4. The Court has indicated that provisional measures have two dimensions: one preventive and the other protective.3 The preventive dimension of provisional measures falls within the framework of international litigations. In this regard, these measures have the object and purpose of preserving rights that are possibly at risk until the dispute has been decided. They are ordered to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on merits, thereby preventing any harm to the rights in litigation, a situation that could invalidate the final decision or impair its effectiveness. Thus, provisional measures allow the State concerned to comply with the final decision and, if applicable, proceed to make the reparations ordered. 4 Regarding the protective dimension of provisional measures, this Court has indicated that provisional measures result in a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature, because they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons.5 3 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“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; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Request for provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of April 14, 2010, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2010, third considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al., supra note 3, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al., supra note 3, third considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper), supra note 3, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al., supra note 3, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al., supra note 3, third considering paragraph.