6 6. On previous opportunities, the Court interpreted that the phrase “matters that have not yet been submitted before it,” included in Article 63(2) in fine of the American Convention, assumes that there is at least a possibility that the matter that substantiates the request for provisional measures may be submitted to the knowledge of the Tribunal in its contentious jurisdiction. That in order for said minimum possibility to exist, the proceeding established in Articles 44 and 46 through 48 of the American Convention has to have been started.7 7. In International Human Rights Law provisional measures not only have a precautionary nature, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but fundamentally a protective one, since they protect human rights in the measure that they seek to avoid irreparable damages to persons. The order to adopt measures is applicable as long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damages to persons are present. Thus, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.8 8. The Court has considered it necessary to clarify that, in view of the protective nature of provisional measures (supra Considering clause 7), it is possible to exceptionally order them even when there is not a contentious case as such within the Inter-American System, in situations that, prima facie, may result in a grave and urgent infringement of human rights. For this, an assessment of the problem presented, the effectiveness of the state’s actions regarding the situation described, and the degree of lack of protection that will fall upon the people over which the measures are requested if they are not adopted shall be assessed. In order to achieve this objective it is necessary that the Inter-American Commission present sufficient reason to cover the mentioned criteria and that the State fail to prove in a clear and sufficient manner the effectiveness of specific measures it has adopted within the domestic realm.9 9. From the information provided by the Commission, it can be concluded that Mr. Natera Balboa, who was imprisoned, serving a prison sentence at the “El Dorado” Oriental Region Penitentiary Center, Bolivar State, had been missing since November 8, 2009 (supra Having Seen paragraph 2(a)), date on which his mother had telephone contact with him for the last time. Likewise, several testimonies indicate that on that same date, at approximately 10:30 a.m., Mr. Natera was at the prison installations walking near the gate, when several members of the National Guard, led by a captain, beat him and violently took him toward a black Ford car. On the other hand, the Court has not been informed that said person voluntarily left the penitentiary center. 7 Cfr. Matter of García Uribe et al. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Considering clauses three and four; Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 6, Considering clause seven, and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Request for provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering clause five. 8 Cfr. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering clause number four; Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 6, Considering clause four, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia). Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 15, 2009, Considering clause four. 9 Cfr. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 7, Considering clause nine, and Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 6, Considering clause eight.