11 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. That, in the terms of Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: [a]t 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 whatever provisional measures it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. [w]ith respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in that treaty and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That, in general, under domestic legal systems (internal procedural law), the purpose of provisional measure is to protect the rights of the parties in dispute, ensuring that the judgment on merits is not prejudiced by their actions pendente lite. 6. That, under international human rights law, the purpose of urgent and provisional measures goes further, because, in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 7. That, after examining the documents in the file on the present measures, the Court deems it necessary to reiterate to Venezuela that it is the State’s responsibility to adopt safety measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction and that this obligation is even plainer with regard to those who are involved in proceedings before the organs of protection of the American Convention. 8. That, when ordering the State of Venezuela to adopt provisional measures in favor of Liliana Ortega, Yris Medina Cova, Hilda (Gilda) Páez, Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano (Lizcano), Alicia de González and Carmen Alicia Mendoza, the Court also ordered it to report on the implementation of these measures (supra first and twentieth having seen paragraphs. 9. That, from a detailed examination of the information in the file on provisional measures, the Court has verified that Venezuela has submitted five reports. However, the information provided does not reflect effective implementation of the measures requested by this Court with regard to protection of the life and safety of the beneficiaries, participation of the petitioners in the coordination and planning of the means of protection, investigation of the facts that gave rise to the measures and submission to the Court of reports by the State every two months. Moreover, the time limit for presenting the pending report expired on October 15, 2003, and it had not been received. 10. That Article 68(1) of the Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”