diligently and effectively and, in general, to keep them informed of any progress in the
implementation of the measures.
[…]

2.
The Order of the President of the Court of April 1, 2011 (ratified by the Order of the
Court of May 15, 2011), in which he summoned the parties to a public hearing on June 28,
2011, on compliance with the provisional measures (hereinafter “the hearing”), during the
ninety-fourth regular session of the Inter-American Court held in San Jose, Costa Rica.
3.
The briefs of June 7, August 5, October 7 and December 7, 2011, and February 9,
April 10 and June 20, 2012, in which the Mexican State (hereinafter “the State” or
“Mexico”) presented reports on the implementation of the provisional measures.
4.
The briefs of July 8, August 7 and 30, September 7 and November 20, 2011, and
January 10, March 15, May 16, July 24 and November 7, 2012, in which the Centro de
Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres (CEDHM), the Comisión de Solidaridad y Defensa de los
Derechos Humanos (COSYDDHAC), and the Paso del Norte Human Rights Center (PASO DEL
NORTE) as representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter “the
representatives”) presented observations on the briefs of the State.
5.
The briefs of June 1, August 8 and 30, 2011, and August 21, 2012, in which the
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission”
or “the Commission”) referred to the implementation of the measures.
6.
The notes of the Secretariat of October 17 and November 9, 2012, in which, on the
instructions of the President, it reiterated to the State that it should submit the
corresponding report in which it should refer to the facts reported by the representatives in
their communication of November 7, 2012.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
Mexico ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on March 24, 1981, and,
pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
on December 16, 1998.
2.
Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates 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 also regulated in Article 27 of the Court’s
Rules of Procedure and is of a compulsory nature for the States, because a basic principle of
international law, supported by international case law, indicates that States must comply
with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1
3.
Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only preventive
in nature, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but they are also essentially
protective inasmuch as they seek to safeguard human rights and avoid irreparable damage
1
Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luís Galdámez
Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of
October 24, 2012, second considering paragraph.

2

Select target paragraph3