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. […] 8. When the Court considers it appropriate, it may require from other sources of information any relevant data on the matter that would permit it to assess the gravity and urgency of the situation and the effectiveness of the measures. To that end, it may also require expert opinions and any other report that it considers appropriate. 4. This request for provisional measures does not arise from a case that the Court is hearing, nor has an initial petition been lodged before the Inter-American Commission for the facts that substantiate the request for provisional measures. However, this Court has established in previous cases that, “owing to the protective nature of provisional measures, exceptionally, these may be ordered, even when there is no contentious case before the inter-American system, in situations that, prima facie, may result in a grave and imminent impairment of human rights. 3 In this regard, the Court has indicated that, in this type of situation, in addition to the requirements established in Article 63 of the Convention, it is necessary to take into account the situation described, the effectiveness of the State’s actions in relation to this situation, and the degree of lack of protection in which the persons for whom the measures are requested would find themselves if these were not adopted. Thus, the Court reiterates that, in these cases, the Commission must present “sufficient grounds that include the criteria indicated. The Court also reiterates that the State has not revealed clearly and sufficiently the effectiveness of certain measures that it may have taken in the domestic jurisdiction”. 4 5. This Court has established that, under international human rights law, provisional measures are not merely preventive, in that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather they are essentially protective, since they protect human rights inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 5 The preventive nature of provisional measures relates to the framework for international litigations; thus, the object and purpose of such measures is to preserve the rights that are possibly at risk until the dispute has been decided. Their object and purpose are to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits and, in this way, to avoid harm to the rights in litigation, a situation that could nullify or render useless the practical effects of the final decision. Accordingly, provisional measures allow the State in question to comply with the final decision and, as appropriate, proceed to implement the reparations ordered. 6 Regarding their protective nature, this Court has indicated that, provided that the basic requirements are met, provisional measures become a 3 Cf. Matter of the Socio-educational Internment Facility, Provisional measures with regard to Brazil, Order of the Court of February 25, 2001, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Guerrero Larez with regard to Venezuela, Order of the Court of November 17, 2009, eighth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Matter of the Socio-educational Internment Facility, Provisional measures with regard to Brazil, Order of the Court of February 25, 2001, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Guerrero Larez with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, eighth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of December 6, 2012, fifth considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Matter of the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo II. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing, Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of December 6, 2012, fifth considering paragraph. 5