4 b. [a]dopt the measures necessary to enable him to carry on [...] his work of defending human rights [; and] c. [r]eport the measures taken to identify the source of the threats on the life and the integrity of person of Carlos Nieto Palma and his family, threats that justify invocation of Article 63(2) of the Convention. CONSIDERING: 1. That the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977 and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 24, 1981. 2. That 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 respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. That article 25(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure provides that “[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.” 4. That article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the duty of States parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That the purpose of provisional measures in domestic legal systems (domestic procedural law) in general, is to preserve the rights of the parties to a dispute, thereby ensuring that execution of the judgment on the merits is not obstructed or otherwise prejudiced by their actions pendente lite. 6. That under the International Law of Human Rights, urgent and provisional measures serve a further purpose, which is to protect fundamental human rights, thereby avoiding irreparable harm to persons. 7. That the information presented by the Commission in this case reveals, prima facie, a threat to the life, integrity of person, and personal liberty of human rights defender Carlos Nieto Palma, and a threat to the life and integrity of person of his family, particularly his nephew John Carmelo Laicono Nieto (supra ‘Having Seen’ 2 and 3). On a number of occasions, when protective measures were called for, this Court has ordered provisional measures applying the standard of prima facie assessment of a case and on the basis of presumptive evidence.1 8. That states must grant effective and adequate guarantees to human rights defenders so that they are able to freely engage in their activities; particular attention should be paid to any actions that constrain or obstruct their work.2 1 Cf., inter alia, The Case of the “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” Newspapers. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004, ‘Considering’ seven; Case of the Indigenous Community of Sarayaku. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004, ‘Considering’ seven; and Case of Kankuamo Indigenous People. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2004, ‘Considering’ seven.