14 6. That the case which gave rise to the adoption of theses provisional measures is not being heard by the Court regarding the merits thereof and that the adoption of provisional measures does not imply a decision on the merits of any controversy which may exist between the beneficiaries and the State. In adopting provisional measures, the Court is only exercising its powers pursuant to the Convention, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency which require the adoption of protection measures in order to prevent irreparable damage to persons.2 7. That provisional measures are of an exceptional nature, are ordered according to the need of protection, and, once ordered, must be maintained as long as the Court considers that the prerequisites of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to prevent irreparable damage to the rights of the persons thereby protected3 still persist. 8. That pursuant to the provision set forth in Article 63(2) of the Convention, the adoption of provisional measures which have been ordered by the Court is binding upon the State, as the fundamental principle underlying the law on the responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, sets forth that the States must comply with the conventional obligations thereof in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).4 * * * 9. That, regarding the situation of Islena Rey, the State has implemented several measures aimed at affording protection in her behalf (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(a)(i), 11(a)(i), and 11(a)(iv)). Notwithstanding, the Court notes with concern that difficulties and deficiencies have arisen regarding its implementation, which are reflected, inter alia, in the events occurred between the escorts and the beneficiary (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(a)(iii), 8(a)(v), 8(a)(vii), 10(a)(ii), 10(a)(vii), 10(a)(viii), 11(a)(i), and 11(a)(ii)), in the operating problems of the vehicle allocated to the protection plan afforded to the beneficiary (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(a)(iv) and 10(a)(iii)), in the allocation of the resources necessary for the implementation of the protection measures (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(a)(iv), 10(a)(iii), 10(a)(iv), and 11(a)(ii)), in the communication problems and the lack of coordination between the State and the beneficiary (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(a)(vi), 10(a)(vi), and 11(a)(i)), and in the nonreassessment of the degree of risk and threat the beneficiary faces at present (supra Having Seen clause No. 8(a)(v)). Prieto et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 26, 2006, Considering clause No. 7. 2 Cf. Case of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira" Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7; Matter of Gloria Giralt de García-Prieto et al. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5; and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering clause No. 7. 3 Cf. Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering clause No. 6; Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 7; and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 4. Cf. Case of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira" Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 19; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 16; and Case of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation. Provisional Measures, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 8. 4