4. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only preventive in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but they are also essentially protective because they protect human rights, insofar as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provisional measures are applicable provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met. Thus, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature. 4 5. The State has repeatedly requested that the Court partially lift these provisional measures with respect to three of the four beneficiaries, namely Mrs. Mariela Duarte, widow of Giraldo, and her daughters Sara and Natalia Giraldo. In this regard, the Court reiterates that, pursuant to its jurisdiction within the framework of provisional measures, it can only consider the merits of arguments relating strictly and directly to extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Thus, in order to decide whether to maintain the provisional measures in effect, the Court must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or whether new circumstances, which are equally grave and urgent, warrant keeping them in force. Any other issue may only be brought to the Court’s attention by means of a contentious case. 5 The Court recalls that these provisional measures were adopted in October 1996, following a request by the Inter-American Commission in relation to an application filed before that body due to alleged threats, harassment, persecution, executions, forced disappearances and forced displacements of members of the Civic Committee of Meta. After the Commission adopted precautionary measures in favor of members of the Civic Committee, on October 13, 1996 Mr. Josué Giraldo Cardona, President of said Committee, was murdered. 6 In his Order of October 28, 1996 the President of the Court considered that “the violent antecedents and new acts of violence and aggression against members of the Civic Human Rights Committee of Meta, which have occurred since 1992, constitute a situation of imminent and grave danger.” 7 Furthermore, the Court notes that in its observations of April 22, 2010 the Inter-American Commission reported that the case of Josué Giraldo Cardona was in the stage of admissibility and merits. 6. In this Order the Court will examine: (A) the status and implementation of the provisional measures ordered in favor of Islena Rey Rodríguez, current President of the Civic Committee; (B) the application of the provisional measures adopted in favor of Mariela Duarte. widow of Giraldo, and her daughters Sara and Natalia Giraldo; (C) the reopening ceremony of the Civic Human Rights Committee of Meta, and (D) investigations into the facts related to these measures. A. Regarding the status and implementation of the provisional measures ordered in favor of Islena Rey 4 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación”. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of September 7, 2001, Considering paragraph 4, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 4, 2011, Considering paragraph 5. 5 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 Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 5. 6 Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of October 28, 1996, Having Seen paras. 1, 3 and 4. This decision was ratified by the Court through the Order of February 5, 1997, Operative para. 1. 7 Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of October 28, 1996, Considering paragraph 5. 3