Under the International Law of Human Rights, provisional measures are not only precautionary in nature, in the sense that they safeguard a legal situation, but they are also fundamentally protective because they protect human rights, insofar as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are implemented whenever all the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency, and of preventing irreparable harm to people, are present. Thus, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee, which is preventive in nature.20 23. However, with regard to the dual nature of provisional measures, the Court has also stated that: [t]he precautionary nature of the provisional measures is connected to the framework of international adversarial cases. In such sense, these measures are intended to preserve those rights, which are at risk until the controversy is finally settled. Its purpose is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits and in this way, avoid the litigious rights being impaired, situation which may adversely affect the useful purpose of the final decision. The provisional measures make it possible for the State in question, in this sense, to comply with the final decision and, if applicable, to go ahead with the reparations so ordered. As to the protective nature of the provisional measures, this Court has [stated] that, providing the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency as well as avoidance of irreparable damage of people are met, provisional measures are transformed in a true judicial guarantee of precautionary nature, since they protect human rights inasmuch as they are intended to avoid irreparable damage to persons.21 24. Therefore, it is clear that one of the fundamental purposes of provisional measures is to "ensure the practical effectiveness of rights so that they are not merely rhetorical."22 Thus, during the functioning of the Inter-American Court, the Court has ordered provisional measures in 91 matters and cases brought before it, providing protection for more than 25,000 people. 25. However, it should be noted that, procedurally, the fact that the Court has ruled on the merits and ordered the appropriate reparation measures does not automatically lead to the lifting of provisional measures. Quite the contrary. Even in the monitoring compliance with judgments stage, the Court, on numerous occasions, has decided to maintain the measures, and even extend them due to the threat of irreparable damage and situations of "extreme gravity and urgency."23 Additionally, 20 Case of the "La Nación" Newspaper. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering Clause four. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering Clause 7 and 8. 22 Cf. Burbano Herrera, Clara, Provisional Measures in the Case Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights , Antwerp, Intersentia, 2010, p. 1. 23 Cf. Case of Blake. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000, operative paragraph one; Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 2, 2011, operative paragraph one; Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 6, 2003, operative paragraph two, and Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, operative paragraph one. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, operative paragraph one. Case of Loayza Tamayo. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2001, operative paragraph two. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago: Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 3, 8