daughters Sara and Natalia Giraldo. On January 14, 2013 the State presented its final bimonthly report, which shall not be considered in this Order, given that the deadline for submitting observations to this report has not expired as of the date of this Order. 3. The communications of May 31, August 19, October 3, September 12, October 19 and December 29, 2011, as well as the communications of 24 of February 24, May 28 and September 13, 2012, in which the representatives of the beneficiaries (hereinafter the “representatives”) presented their observations on the State’s report, and to its request to partially lift the measures, as well as additional information concerning the “postponement” of the reopening ceremony of the Civic Human Rights Committee of Meta (hereinafter “Civic Committee of Meta” or “Civic Committee”). 4. The briefs of July 13 2011, February 14 and July 13 2012 and January 29, 2013, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented its observations to the State’s reports and to its request for the partial lifting of the measures, as well as to the corresponding observations and information submitted by the representatives regarding the implementation of these provisional measures. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, on June 21, 1985. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]n 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.” This provision is in turn regulated in Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure 1 (hereinafter “the Rules”), which establishes that such measures may be applied provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons, are met. These three requirements are concurrent and must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered; if one of these no longer exists, it will be up to the Court to assess the appropriateness of continuing with the protection ordered. 2 3. According to Article 63(2) of the Convention, the provisional measures ordered by the Court are binding on the State, because a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, indicates that States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). 3 1 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its Eighty-fifth Regular Period of Sessions, held on November 16-28, 2009. 2 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 6, 2009, Considering paragraph 14, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 22. 3 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of August 29, 1998, Considering paragraph 6, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 23, 2012, Considering paragraph 2. 2