c) dismiss the broadening of the urgent measures, considering that while the representatives only partially consent to the content of the ruling of the Twenty-Sixth Court, the laws in force in Venezuela “set forth the pertinent remedies to be exercised […] against the ruling issued by the [Court] on February 2, 2011.” CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977, and that in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, it recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 24, 1981. 2. Article 62(3) of the American Convention stipulates that “in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to prevent irreparable harm to persons, the Court, in the matters it has under consideration, may take the provisional measures it deems pertinent. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. Pursuant to Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court:7 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, 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. […] 4. The Court has pointed out that provisional measures have two natures: precautionary and protective.8 The precautionary nature of provisional measures is related to the context of international cases. In this sense, the purpose and goal of these measures is to preserve rights potentially at risk while the dispute remains unresolved. Their purpose and goal is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits, and thus prevent the violation of the rights in question, a situation that could render moot or invalidate the usefulness of the final decision. The provisional measures thus allow the State in question to comply with the final decision, and, where applicable, proceed with the reparations ordered.9 With regard to the protective nature of the provisional measures, this Court has indicated that the provisional measures are a true legal guarantee of a preventive 7 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its LXXXV Regular Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 8 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (Periódico “La Nación”). Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering 4; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 15, 2010, Considering 6; and Matter of COFAVIC- Case of the Caracazo. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering 4. 9 Cf. Matter of El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering 7; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al, supra footnote 6, Considering 6; Matter of COFAVIC- Case of the Caracazo, supra note 6, Considering 4. 15