14 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides 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 regard to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission”. 3. According to Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereafter, “the Rules of Procedure”): 1. [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 such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention [; and] […] 6. [t]he beneficiaries of provisional measures or urgent measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 4. Article 1(1) of the Convention imposes on States Parties the obligation to respect the rights and freedoms set out in that treaty and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of said rights and freedoms. This entails, as the Court has stated, that said general obligation is imposed not only in relation to the State’s power, but also in relation to the actions of third parties, including irregular armed groups of any nature1. 5. In International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not only precautionary in the sense that they preserve a legal situation, but fundamentally protective because they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provisional measures may be applied whenever the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency are met, together with the need to prevent irreparable damage to persons. In this way, provisional measures are transformed into a true jurisdictional guarantee of preventative character.2 6. The merits of the case that gave rise to the present provisional measures are not before the Court, and the adoption of provisional measures does not imply any decision on those merits or the controversy between the petitioners and the State. When ordering provisional measures, the Tribunal is only exercising its authority under the Convention to require the State to take protective action to avoid irreparable damage to individuals in situations of extreme gravity and urgency.3 1 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Ninth Considering; Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitenciary Center. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Fourteenth Considering ; and Matter of The Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, Sixth Considering. 2 Cf. Matter of Giraldo-Cardona. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Right of November 29, 2006, Fifth Considering; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. In favor of the members of the team of communitarian and psychosocial action studies (ECAP). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2006, Sixth Considering; and Matter of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira" Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 30, 2006, Fifth Considering. 3 Cf. Matter of Giraldo-Cardona. Provisional Measures, supra note 2, Sixth Considering; Matter of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira" Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil. Provisional