submit specific facts to provide justification for its request for measures regarding those persons, nor did it indicate that any of them had been the victim of any act of aggression or threat as a result of this matter, meaning that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency has not been demonstrated. Likewise, Mexico highlighted that proposed beneficiaries Luz Esthela Castro Rodríguez and the other members of the Centro de Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres (CEDEHM) are covered by precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission, which have been duly implemented. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and, in keeping with Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention holds 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 in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. On this subject, Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes in its applicable part that: 1. At any stage of 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. […] 5. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. 6. If the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, in consultation with the Permanent Commission and, if possible, with the other Judges, shall call upon the State concerned to adopt such urgent measures as may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of any provisional measures that may be ordered by the Court during its next period of sessions. […] 4. The provisions established in Article 63(2) of the Convention make the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal obligatory, as the basic principle of International Law, based on international case law, has indicated that States must comply with their obligations under the Convention in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 5. In International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not solely precautionary, in the sense that they preserve the legal situation. Rather they are fundamentally tutelary, in that they protect human rights by seeking to prevent irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applicable as long as they meet the 2 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of June 14, 1998, Considering 6; Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of February 25, 2011, Considering 3, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, Considering 4. 5