5. The briefs of August 28, 2009, July 15, 2010, and June 6, 2011, in which the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their comments on the State’s reports, with the exception of the one presented on August 25, 2010 (supra Having Seen 4). 6. The briefs of September 23 and November 4, 2009; May 7, June 28 and October 28, 2010; and January 25 and May 17, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented its observations on the reports of the State and the briefs of the representatives (supra Having Seen 4 and 5). 7. The notes of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of May 13, June 30, November 17 and December 10, 2010, and February 1 and May 23, 2011, in which it reiterated to the representatives that they should submit their observations on the State’s reports of December 14, 2009; March 15, May 11, August 25 and December 9, 2010; and March 31, 2011 (supra Having Seen 4). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “American Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 2. Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that: In 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. In this regard, Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes in its pertinent part that: 1. At 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. […] 3. In contentious cases already submitted to the Court, the victims or alleged victims or their duly accredited representatives, may present a request for provisional measures in relation to the cases directly to the Court. […] 4. The provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention confer an obligatory nature on the State’s adoption of the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal, as the basic principle of the law on State responsibility, supported by international case law, indicates that a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 5. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not merely precautionary in nature, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather 1 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 4, 2011, fourth considering paragraph, and matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, fourth considering paragraph. 2