Basically, it affirms that these measures are ordered under the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.3 It should also be noted, for this purpose, that, within the Convention, the aforementioned provision 63(2) is found after the provisions of Articles 61 and 62, which refer to said jurisdiction, and before Article 64, which refers to advisory jurisdiction, from which it becomes evident that the first three rules comprise a whole. The same happens with the Rules of Procedure of the Court, where the provisional measures are addressed in Article 27, i.e., in Title II "Procedure" thereof. Furthermore, it should be recalled that Article 62(3) of the Convention states: "[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement." Therefore, the harmonious interpretation of the aforementioned conventional rules lead to the conclusion that "the matters before" the Court, and the scope within which provisional measures may be ordered, can be no other than "case[s] on the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention brought before it" in the exercise of its jurisdiction, that is, in those which it delivers justice, and in those which it rules on. Thus, it must be borne in mind, firstly, that according to its ordinary meaning,4 a meaning of the term "to know" is to "[h]ear an issue with the legitimate power to do so."5 The example provided is "[t]he judge hearing the case." 6 Therefore, it can be said that the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the "case" that is "brought" before it, consists in solving or ruling on whether the provisions of the Convention have been interpreted and applied therein. This is what the Court hears. Therefore, the authority of the Court to "hear" a contentious case translates as "ruling on it." Secondly, the aforementioned theory states that provisional measures are in order, as a general rule, during the course of a contentious case, and the words "matters" and "cases" must be understood for the purposes indicated, as synonyms. And this is, firstly, because of the ordinary meaning of such terms.7 While among the meanings of the term "matter" are the "[m]aterial concerned" and "the case,"8 in relation to the latter it states that "[m]aterial concerned or proposed to consult someone and ask for their opinion" and 3 The Court has contentious jurisdiction and non-contentious or advisory jurisdiction. The former is set forth in Articles 61, 62 and 63 of the Convention. The latter is provided for in Article 64 thereof. As set forth by Article 2 of the Statute of the Court. And perhaps as a result, the Rules of Procedure of the Court refer to Title II as "Procedure" and Title III as "Advisory Opinions." 4 5 Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Dictionary of the Spanish Language, Real Academia Española, Twenty-Second Edition, Madrid, Spain, 2001. 6 Idem. 7 Idem. Idem. 8 2