12 measures is linked to the framework of international disputes. In that sense, these measures seek to preserve rights at risk until such time as the controversy is resolved. The object and goal of the measures are to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits, and thus to avoid disturbing the specific rights at issue, creating a situation that could render moot or otherwise distort the applicability of the final decision. Provisional measures permit this in order that the State in question may fulfill the final decision’s mandate and, if necessary, to make the necessary reparations.7 As to the protective nature of provisional measures, this Court notes that provisional measures transform into a true guarantee of a preventive character,8 as they seek to protect human rights while also endeavoring to avoid irreparable harm to persons.9 5. As with both the preventive and the precautionary dimensions, litigants seeking provisional measures must fulfill the three requirements listed in Article 63(2) of the Convention, to wit: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”; and iii) that they seek to “avoid irreparable harm to individuals.” These three conditions are coexistent and must be present in all situations in which the Tribunal’s intervention is requested.10 6. Regarding the issue of gravity, for the purposes of the adoption of provisional measures, the Convention requires that it be “extreme”; that is, that the seriousness must be at its most intense or highest level. The urgent nature implies that the risk or threat involved is imminent, which requires that the response to correct it be immediate. Finally, regarding damages, there must be a reasonable probability that such damages will materialize, and liability must not be limited to damage to repairable property or legal interests.11 7 Cf. Matter of El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering clause seven; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al., supra note 6, Considering clause six; Case of the Caracazo, supra note 6, Considering clause four. 8 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper), supra note 6, Considering clause four; Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 2, 2010, Considering clause six; and, Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility “Tocorón Prison.” Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 1, 2010, Considering clause six. 9 Cf. Matter of El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 7, Considering clause eight; Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, supra note 8, Considering clause seven; and, Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility “Tocorón Prison,” supra note 8, Considering clause six. 10 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause fourteen; Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 26, 2010, Considering clause two; and, Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility “Tocorón Prison,” supra note 8, Considering clause eight. 11 Cf. Matter of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), Yare I and Yare II Correctional Facilities (Yare Prison), Central-West Regional Correctional Facility (Uribana Prison), and El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause three; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering clause six; and, Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering clause seventy-two.