April 19 1978, and, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 25, 1999. 2. Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes 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.” 3. According to the provision established in Article 63(2) of the Convention, provisional measures ordered by the Court are binding on the State in conformity to a basic principle of the law of international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 4. In this regard, the pertinent part of Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”)2 establishes that: 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. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission […] 5. Under International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not only preventive in nature, in the sense that they preserve a legal situation, but mostly protective, because they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable harm to persons. Thus, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 6. Article 63.2 of the Convention requires that, for the Court to order provisional measures, three conditions must be met: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) the need “to avoid irreparable harm to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Similarly, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of the conditions is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of maintaining the protection ordered.4 1 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of June 28, 2012, second considering paragraph. 2 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its eighty-fifth regular session, held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 3 Cf. Case of ”La Nación” newspaper. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Case of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, third considering paragraph. 3