The Court’s affirmations clearly set forth that the general rule is that the provisional measures proceed in contentious cases, i.e., in which it rules, and only exceptionally and where requested by the Commission, on matters that are likely to become contentious cases. And could not it be otherwise, given that if it were not so, the procedure for such measures would be completely different, separate, and unrelated to the contentious case, which requests and decrees that which, in every regards, is different to the provisions of the regulatory texts. Therefore, it should be added that, without a doubt, the facts giving rise to the risk that the provisional measures so ordered seek to prevent, and the beneficiaries of such measures, are clearly linked to the corresponding contentious case. It is appropriate to note, finally, that even the Court's own resolutions adopted with regard to provisional measures refer, in their names and therefore perhaps as a result, to the contentious case. II.- Effects of the judgment. From the foregoing, it appears therefore that if the provisional measures are admissible and are decreed in the proceeding before the Court relating to an act that it hears or rules upon within its contentious jurisdiction, they cease once such consideration or trial ends, being replaced, however, by the judgment. Indeed, the judgment on merits resolves the corresponding contentious case; it rules on it, i.e., there is no dispute, since it has been resolved. The first phrase of Article 67 of the Convention sets forth that: "the Court's decision is final and non-appealable." As a result letter g. of paragraph 1 of Article 65 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court adds that: "[t]he judgment shall contain: [...] the ruling on the case." However, a final order may be a conviction or acquittal for the State concerned. In the first eventuality, the provision of Article 63(1) of the Convention applies, which states: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party." In this regard, it should be considered that this rule forms a whole with the aforementioned Article 63(2), which means therefore that the Convention not only expressly regulates the provisional measures as part of the contentious jurisdiction above criteria and that the State fails to clearly and sufficiently demonstrate the effectiveness of certain measures adopted within the internal jurisdiction ." 5