5. The briefs of December 12, 2011, and April 24 and August 28, 2012, in which the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their observations on the State’s reports of July 26, 2011, and February 7, May 7 and August 9, 2012. The representatives did not present observations on the State’s report of November 7, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 4). 6. The communications of September 15, 2011, and January 4, April 11, July 6 and October 1, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted its observations on the State’s reports (supra having seen paragraph 4) and on the briefs of the representatives (supra having seen paragraph 5). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that: In 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. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. In this regard, the relevant part of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”)1 establishes that: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 7. The monitoring of urgent or provisional measures ordered shall be carried out through the submission of reports by the State and the filing of observations to those reports by the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives. The Commission shall submit observations to the State’s reports and to the observations of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives. […] 4. 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. Provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.2 1 The Court’s Rules of Procedure approved during its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa with regard to Costa Rica (Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper). Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional measures with regard to Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, fifth considering paragraph. 2