furthermore, it should keep in mind that if an application included that principle with regard to the latter, it would be referring to the fact that the rule that regulates them should be interpreted in view of its object and purpose, which is to avoid the irreparable damage that a person involved in a contentious case could suffer, during the proceeding before the Court. Finally, it is not admissible to allude to the practice of the Court regarding the repeated declarations of provisional measures after pronouncing the judgment on merits in the respective contentious case to argue that, thereby, the act is legitimate, specifically because it was accepted by States who did not protest against it and effectively complied with the provisions of such measures. And such a reference would not be worthy of consideration because the attitude of the State concerned would not be an unequivocal demonstration of their will or intention to accept or agree that the aforementioned practice is a new rule that arises in the absence of treaty addressing the matter and, consequently, it imposes a new obligation upon them, but rather it moreover would be an expression that, on the subject, it says nothing and, simply, having previously and conventionally committed to it, complies with a court order. Therefore, such compliance does not create a new obligation for the State, but rather the State responds to the provisions of a conventional rule. The estoppel rule or the doctrine of one's own acts or the preclusion would not be admissible regarding the State Party to proceedings, since with its indicated act, it had no intention of creating, through the relevant proceeding provided for in the Convention, a new international legal rule or a new international legal obligation. Furthermore, one should also note that the State ruling has been, with respect to such measures, individual and not from the whole or the majority of States Parties to the Convention such that in the case the "authentic interpretation" may not be applied, i.e., deem that it is a subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation."43 Conclusion. In short, upon issuance of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs in proceedings, a preclusion takes effect regarding the power of the Court to order provisional measures in relation to the contentious case in question, since, following this, one can only amend the obvious mistakes, clerical errors and calculation errors, interpret it and then monitor compliance, and report annually to the political body —the OAS General Assembly— in the case of non-compliance. The judgment does not mean, however, that the object and purpose pursued by the provisional measures issued during the proceeding are legally unprotected, but precisely the opposite, since it imposes upon the State concerned the specific obligation to ensure "the injured party his right or freedom that was violated," particularly in "cases of extreme gravity and urgency and when it is necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons." Court to maintain the protection so ordered. If a condition ceases to be effective, the Court shall assess the need to continue the protection so ordered." 43 Art. 31(1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 9