5 4. The Commission’s concern, stated in its communication (supra first having seen paragraph), that the State had not adopted adequate preventive measures notwithstanding the attacks by armed groups that harass the community; that despite the military presence in several places, the members of the Communities have not been encouraged to return to their humanitarian zones; and, that the implementation of the agroindustrial oil palm project on the collective territory continues without the consent of the Communities. The Commission also indicates that, owing to the constant paramilitary armed raids, sowing activities for community crops has been paralyzed, and this has exacerbated the food situation in the short and medium term. Lastly, it indicates that the actions taken by the State in response to the precautionary measures ordered by the Commission have not provided effective protection to the beneficiaries, who continue to be subjected to acts of harassment and violence by paramilitary groups that operate freely in a zone where there is a substantial Army presence. In light of the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission requested the Court “to admit this request for provisional measures in response to the gravity of the situation and the urgency to prevent irreparable damage to the communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó,” and asked the Court to order various specific measures. CONSIDERING: 1. That the State ratified the American Convention on July 31, 1973, and that, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, at the request of the Commission, adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters not yet submitted to it. 3. That, in the terms of article 25(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: At 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. 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 5. That, in general, the purpose of provisional measures in domestic legal systems (internal procedural law) is to protect the rights of the parties in dispute, ensuring that the judgment on merits is not prejudiced by their actions pendente lite. 6. That, the purpose of urgent and provisional measures in international human rights law goes further, because, in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons.