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. In the terms of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: 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. […] 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. […] 4. The Tribunal has stated that provisional measures have two characteristics: one precautionary and the other protective.1 The precautionary nature of provisional measures is linked to the framework of international disputes. In that sense, the objective and purpose of these measures is to preserve the rights that are possibly at risk until the controversy is resolved. Their objective and purpose is to guarantee the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on merits and thus avoid infringement of the rights in question, which could make the final decision innocuous or nullify its effet utile. Therefore, provisional measures allow the State in question to comply with the final decision and, where appropriate, proceed with the reparations ordered.2 With regard to the protective nature of the provisional measures, this Court has stated that provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature3 in their protection of human rights, provided they seek to avoid irreparable damages to persons.4 5. In this case, Alejandro Ponce Villacís and Alejandro Ponce Martínez (hereinafter the petitioners) have acted as Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga’s legal representatives. The Court issued a Judgment on reparations in the Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador last March 3, 2011, which was notified to the State of Ecuador on March 23, 2011. Currently, that Judgment is in the monitoring compliance stage. According to the representatives, the alleged acts of “harassment” occurred on March 26 and April 4, 2011. 6. The Tribunal recalls that compliance with the three requirements established in Article 63(2) of the Convention is necessary in order to be able to grant provisional 1 Cfr. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper). Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, Considering 4; Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, Considering 5, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the President of the Court of April 1, 2011, Considering 4. 2 Cfr. Matter of the Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, Considering 7; Matter of Eloísa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 21, 2011, Considering 2, and Matter of Maria Lourdes Afiuni. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of March 2, 2011, Considering 4. 3 Cfr. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper), supra footnote 1, Considering 4; Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Perú. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, Considering 10, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes, supra footnote 1, Considering 5. 4 Cfr. Matter of the Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra footnote 2, Considering 8; Matter of Maria Lourdes Afiuni, supra footnote 2, Considering 4, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, supra footnote 3, Considering 3. 4