5 […] 4. That in International Human Rights Law, provisional measures have not only a preventive character, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but also a tutelary character, for they protect Human Rights, seek to prevent irreparable damage. The measures apply as long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency, and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons exists. In this manner, provisional measures mean a true preventive juridical guarantee. 1 5. That the disposition established in Article 63(2) of the Convention confers a mandatory character to the adoption, by the State, of the provisional measures Ordered by this Tribunal, since the basic principle of law of the State responsibility, endorsed by international law, has pointed out that the States must comply with their obligations pacta sunt servanda.2 * * * 6. That the representatives expressed their concern as to the rendering by the Ministry of Defense of Order 567/MD, that sets the creation of a Work Group to locate and identify the mortal remains of the persons that would have died in the Guerrilha do Araguaia. Likewise, they expressed their fear about the fact that the said Work Group will be coordinated by the Army Command, and it will not include members or representatives of the Public Ministry or the Judicial Power in the decission making, which may affect the compliance of a possible reparation measure of investigating the facts that this Court may Order in the present case. 7. That the Commission considered that Order 567/MD might influence the case and implementation of the Judgment that the Court will eventually Order. Likewise, it estimated that it might be relevant that the Court requested information “in the corresponding procedural oportunity” about: i) the relation between the Work Group created by Order 567/MD and the Comisión Especial sobre Muertos y Desaparecidos Políticos [Special Commission on the Murdered and Disappeared by Politics]; ii) the reasons why the coordination of the Work Group was assigned to the Army Command; iii) the definition of the activities and work methods adopted by the Work Group, and iv) the adopted measures to give transparency to the activities of the Work Group. 8. That among other aspects, the State informed that “only the operational coordination of the work will be in charge of the Army Command and that, according to with was broadly informed by the Brazilian press […] the President of the State himself coordinates, at this moment, actions addressed to create a Commission for 1 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering No. 4; Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering No. 6; and Matter of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding México. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 30, 2009, Considering No. 5. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, Considering No. 6; Matter of Pueblo Indígena Kankuamo. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering No. 5; and Matter of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 1, Considering No. 5.