2
[…]
3.
The briefs of August 10 and November 23, 2009, as well as those of
February 17, April 27, and June 24, 2010, whereby the Republic of Colombia
(hereinafter the “State” or “Colombia”) informed on the progress made in its
implementation of provisional measures and presented requests for abatement
with respect to some beneficiaries of the same.
4.
The briefs of July 17 and November 6, 2009, as well as those of March 5,
May 13, July 4, and July 16, 2010, whereby the representatives of the
beneficiaries (hereinafter the “representatives”) presented their observations on
the State’s brief and on additional information regarding the implementation of
the present provisional measures, including on the State’s requests for
abatement.
5.
The briefs of August 27, 2009, as well as those of June 10 and July
2010, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
“Inter-American Commission” or the “Commission”) stated its observations on
information presented by the State and the representatives concerning
implementation of the present provisional measures.
30,
the
the
the
6.
The notes of September 2, November 9, and November 27, 2009, as well
as those of February 1 and February 23, 2010, whereby the Secretariat of the
Court (hereinafter the “Secretariat” or “Registrar”), following the instructions of
the President of the Tribunal, reminded the representatives that they were
required to present certain information requested by the Court in its Order of July
8, 2009 (supra Having Seen 2), or to present their respective observations to the
State’s briefs before the expiration of the allotted deadline.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
Colombia became a state party to the American Convention on Human
Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) on July 31,
1973, and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court in
accordance with Article 62 of the Convention on June 21, 1985.
2.
Article 63(2) of the Convention stipulates that the Court may order
provisional measures when three conditions are met, namely: i) “extreme
gravity”; ii) “urgency”; and, iii) when seeking “to avoid irreparable harm to
persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in every situation
where the intervention of the Tribunal is required. By the same token, the
abovementioned conditions must continue to exist in order for the Court to
maintain the protection ordered. If one of them is no longer in force, it falls upon
the Tribunal to assess the need to continue with the protection ordered.1
3.
Article 63(2) of the Convention confers an obligatory character to the
State’s adoption of any provisional measures this Tribunal may order, given that
basic principles of international law, backed by international case law, provide
that states must fulfill their legal obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2
1
Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause fourteen; Case of García Prieto
et al. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
of February 3, 2010, Considering clause two.
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 clause six; Matter of Alvarado