8 2. Regarding to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 6. The beneficiaries of provisional measures or urgent measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives [...] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth the general obligation of the State Parties to respect the rights and liberties enshrined therein and to guarantee their free and full enjoyment by any person under its jurisdiction. In the same sense, the position of the State as guarantor of the rights of the persons under its jurisdiction is pointed out. Theses obligations are even more evident when related to persons involved in proceedings before the surveillance bodies of the American Convention.1 5. That the matter where the Commission has filed its request is heard on the merits by the Court and, notwithstanding said fact, the ordering of provisional measures does not imply a decision on the merits of the case existing between the petitioner and the State. In ordering the provisional measures, this Court is only guaranteeing that the Court may duly exercise its powers under the Convention in cases of extreme seriousness or urgency, where protective measures are necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons.2 6. That the purpose of the provisional measures, in the domestic legal systems (domestic law of procedure), generally, is to preserve the rights of the litigants, thus ensuring that the execution of the judgment on the merits is not impaired or obstructed by the actions of said litigants, pendente lite.3 7. That in the International Human Rights Law, the provisional measures not only have a preventive nature, as they preserve a certain legal status, but also –and mainly- a protective nature, since they protect human rights as long as they are intended to prevent irreparable damage to persons. Provided the basic requirements of extreme seriousness and urgency, and the prevention of irreparable damage to 1 Cf., inter alia, Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2006, Considering clause No. 4; Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2006, Considering clause No. 6; Matter of Guerrero-Gallucci and Martínez-Barrios. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July, 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 4. Cf. Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures., supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7; Matter of Guerrero-Gallucci and Martínez-Barrios. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 14; and Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering clause No. 7. 2 Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 4; Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 4; and Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica"). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 13, 2006, Considering clause No. 4. 3