6.
Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that “[i]n 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 matters not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the
request of the Commission.” This provision is, in turn, regulated in Article 27 of the Court’s
Rules of Procedure and is obligatory in accordance with a basic principle of international
law, supported by international jurisprudence, whereby States are required to comply with
international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). 2
7.
Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not merely
preventive, in that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather they are essentially
protective, since they protect human rights inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable
damage to persons. 3 In this sense, Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that, for the
Court to be able to order provisional measures, three conditions must concur: (i) “extreme
gravity”; (ii) “urgency” and (iii) that the purpose is to “avoid irreparable damage to
persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the
Court is asked to intervene. In the same way, these three conditions must persist for the
Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be valid, the Court
must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 4
8.
Pursuant to its jurisdiction, within the framework of provisional measures, the Court
can only consider the merits of arguments relating strictly and directly to extreme gravity
and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Thus, in order to decide
whether to maintain the provisional measures in effect, the Court must analyze whether the
situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or whether new
circumstances, which are equally grave and urgent, warrant keeping them in force. Any
other issue may only be brought to the Court’s attention by means of a contentious case. 5
a) Implementation of the provisional measures and the situation of risk
9.
Subsequent to the Order of the Court, the State submitted a report regarding the
agreements reached, through a work meeting held on April 23, 2013, in which the
beneficiary and high-ranking authorities of the State, at both the federal and local level,
participated. During the aforementioned meeting, the parties agreed, inter alia, that:

2

Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, considering clause 6, and Matter of Dottin et al. Provisional
Measures regarding the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of
May 14, 2013, considering clause 3.

3
Case of the newspaper “La Nación”. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, considering clause 4, and Matter of B. Provisional
measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 29, 2013, considering
clause 5.
4
Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, considering clause 14, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures
regarding the Republic of Perú. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, considering
clause 3.
5

Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, considering clause 6, and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al.
Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of
February 8, 2013, considering clause 5.

2

Select target paragraph3