CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 25, 1992 and, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 2. Article 63.2 of the American 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.” This matter, in turn, is regulated under Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.1 3. The provisions of Article 63.2 of the Convention confer an obligatory character on any provisional measures ordered by this Court, since a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, indicates that States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 4. In International Human Rights Law, provisional measures not only have a precautionary character, in the sense that they preserve a legally cognizable situation, but also a fundamentally protective one, as they seek to safeguard human rights and avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applied as long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity, urgency and the need to prevent irreparable harm to persons are met. Thus, provisional measures are transformed into a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 5. In this regard, Article 63.2 of the Convention requires the concurrence of three conditions in order for the Court to be able to order provisional measures: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”, and iii) the need to “avoid irreparable harm to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in all instances in which the Court’s intervention is sought. Likewise, the three conditions described must persist for the Court to maintain the protection measures ordered. If one of these conditions is no longer in effect, then the Court must consider the need to continue with the protection ordered.4 6. By virtue of its jurisdiction, in order to decide whether to maintain in effect 1 Rules of Procedure approved by the Inter-American Court in its Eighty-fifth Ordinary Period of Sessions, held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, Considering paragraph 6, and Matter of the Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 29, 2012, Considering paragraph 3. 3 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 paragraph 4, and Matter of Martínez Martínez et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 1, 2012, Considering paragraph 4. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering paragraph 14, and Matter of the Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic, supra note 2, Considering paragraph 6. 2