corresponding final decision.” Costa Rica also indicated that the registration in the Judicial Record of Offenders had been suspended. 17. The Commission’s brief of November 8, 2001, in which it stated that “it [had] no objections to make to the information provided by the State” and that “it [would] remain attentive to the evolution of the situation in order to inform the Court of any change that might arise.” 18. The Commission’s brief of November 30, 2001, in which it indicated that “in flagrant disregard of the provisional measures decided by [the] Court, in a certification dated November 29, 2001, the original of which is attached, it was once again certified, also by the official, Hernán Esquivel Salas, and in the same words as those that preceded the provisional measures decided unanimously” by the Court, that the following entry appears against Mauricio Herrera Ulloa: “the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit, November 12, 1999, sentenced him to one hundred and twenty days of fines for the offense(s) of publication of offenses in the form of libel… .” 19. The Secretariat’s note of December 3, 2001, in which, on the instructions of the Court, it granted the State until December 5, 2001, to present its observations on the Commission’s brief of November 30, 2001. 20. The State’s brief of December 4, 2001, in which it advised that “[o]wing to an erroneous interpretation […] there has been some confusion when certifying the criminal record of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa.” It added that “the Judicial Files and Records Department has already taken the necessary measures to terminate once and for all the uncertainty surrounding the situation of Mr. Herrera Ulloa and ensure […] that, as of this date, such a situation with regard to the certifications issued will never, in any circumstances, be repeated.” CONSIDERING: 1. That Costa Rica has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 8, 1970, and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on July 2, 1980. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that: In 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. 3. That, in this regard, Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court stipulates that: At 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 4. That, in international human rights law, the nature of provisional measures is not only preventive in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but fundamentally protective, because they protect human rights. Provided the basic