10 8. That this Court has previously protected, in the instant case, a plurality of persons who have not been previously named and who are at grave risk in light of Under the current the fact that they are members of the Community.2 circumstances of the instant case, there are individuals in the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó who are in the same situation in terms of risk, and who have not been determined, but who may be identified and individualized through their link to the community as service providers. Therefore, the Court deems it necessary to maintain the provisional measures in favor of the persons already protected by the October 9, 2000 Order of the President of the Court and the November 24, 2000 Order of the Court, as well as, for the reasons stated in the briefs filed by the Commission and by the State and the respective arguments at the public hearing held on June 13, 2002, to expand those measures to all persons linked as service providers to that Peace Community. 9. That the situation described above is especially grave in the case of persons in charge of transportation services, in light of the fact that most recent acts of violence against persons associated with the Peace Community have taken place “on the road from Apartadó to San José de Apartadó, at the public transportation terminal in Apartadó, and at the place called Tierra Amarilla,” where a checkpoint has been functioning. This places those service providers, like other members of the Peace Community, in a situation of grave vulnerability of their rights to life and to humane treatment. 10. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and liberties set forth in that Convention and to guarantee their free and full exercise by all persons under their jurisdiction. This carries with it the duty to adopt such security measures as are required for their protection. These obligations become even more obvious in connection with those who are involved in proceedings with the oversight bodies of the American Convention.3 11. That to make the rights protected by the American Convention effective, the State Party is under the obligation, erga omnes, to protect all persons who are under its jurisdiction. In the opinion of the Court, this means that said general obligation is imperative not only with respect to the power of the State but also with respect to actions by third parties, including irregular armed groups of any type. The Court notes that given the special characteristics of the instant case, and the general conditions of the armed conflict in the Colombian State, it is necessary to protect, through provisional measures, the right to life and the right to human treatment of all members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó as well as those of all persons having ties with that Community as service providers, in light of the provisions of the American Convention and International Humanitarian Law. 2 See Case of the Peace Community San José de Apartadó. November 24, 2000 Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights in Provisional Measures - Compendium: July 2000 – June 2001, Series E No 3. Also, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. August 31, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 79. 3 See Gallardo Rodríguez Case, Provisional Measures. February 18, 2002 Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, sixth considering; Gallardo Rodríguez Case, Provisional Measures. February 14, 2002 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, seventh considering; Case of the Constitutional Court, Provisional Measures. August 14, 2000 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, ninth considering; Case of the Constitutional Court, Provisional Measures. April 7, 2000 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, ninth considering, and Digna Ochoa and Plácido et al. Case, Provisional Measures. November 17, 1999 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, seventh considering.