2 [...]; 6. The application filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) on May 19, 1999, wherein it reported the following: a. In 1998, twelve former civil patrolmen were sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment for the murder of Mr. Juan Chanay Pablo and for numerous other human rights violations committed against citizens of the community of Colotenango; they were taken to a prison facility where security was inadequate, and b. While on a protest march on April 30, 1999, a group of some 600 former patrolmen arrived at Huehuetenango and marched to the facility where the former civil patrolmen were being held. There they suddenly began to brandish clubs, machetes, chainsaws and other tools, which they then used to break into the facility and released the patrolmen. 7. The State’s brief of May 31, 1999, wherein it confirmed the information reported in the Commission’s application (supra 6) and stated the following: a. On May 13, 1999, the Attorney General’s Office reported that on the very day the twelve patrolmen escaped, it immediately took statements from those members of the National Police who were guarding the facility at the time and ordered the Chief of the National Police to search the area around the departmental capital of Huehuetenango in order to find and apprehend the escapees. However, with so few police officers and no patrol cars, any patrol work was out of the question; b. The COPREDEH delegate in Huehuetenango, Vayron Roderico Herrera Mérida -whose job is to accompany officials of the National Police on their periodic visits to those for whom measures have been ordered by the Court- was told by townspeople sympathetic to the former patrolmen that he would be killed if he showed his face in Colotenango; c. Through COPREDEH, the State is currently examining alternative ways it can continue to carry out the provisional measures ordered by the Court, since the presence of the National Police or COPREDEH officials could set off serious incidents in the community of Colotenango, and CONSIDERING: 1. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, if requested by the Commission, adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in cases not yet submitted to the Court”; 2. That under Article 25.1 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: 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, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 3. That Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth the States Parties’ duty to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms; 4. That by virtue of the Court’s orders of June 22 and December 1, 1994, and September 19, 1997, the State has the obligation to adopt the measures needed to preserve the life and safety of those persons on whose behalf the Court ordered provisional measures; 5. That the “case of extreme gravity and urgency” that persists warrants continued enforcement of the provisional measures adopted and called for in the Court’s orders of June 22 and December 1, 1994 and September 19, 1997;