8 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention sets forth that, in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters being heard by the Court, adopt such Provisional Measures as it deems pertinent and, in cases not yet brought before the Court, it may act upon a request by the Commission. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, [a]t 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 pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. [w]ith respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 4. Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth the duty of the States Party to respect the rights and freedoms recognized by that treaty and to ensure their free and full exercise by all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. The aim of Provisional Measures, in national legal systems (domestic procedural law) in general, is to protect the rights of the parties to a dispute, ensuring that the judgment on the merits does not suffer detriment due to their actions pendente lite. 6. The purpose of urgent and provisional measures, in International Human Rights Law, goes further because, in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they effectively protect fundamental rights, insofar as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 7. The Court already established, in its November 27, 2002 Order, that the background information submitted by the Commission in its request demonstrated prima facie the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency regarding the lives and the right to humane treatment of Liliana Ortega, Yris Medina Cova, Hilda Páez, Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano, Alicia de González, and Carmen Alicia Mendoza .3 8. In light of the facts presented at the public hearing (supra Having Seen 15 and 16) and the testimony submitted (supra Having Seen 14), the Court deems it necessary to reiterate to Venezuela that it is the responsibility of the State to adopt security measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction, and that this duty is even more evident with respect to those involved in proceedings before the protection bodies of the American Convention. 9. Venezuela has the obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the Provisional Measures in favor of Liliana Ortega, Yris Medina Cova, Hilda Páez, Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano, Alicia de González, and Carmen Alicia Mendoza, inasmuch as the State has the obligation to combat impunity by all legal means available since it 3 Cf. Liliana Ortega et al. vs. Venezuela Case. Provisional Measures. November 27, 2002 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Considering five.