4 CONSIDERING: 1. The State ratified the American Convention on September 25, 1979 and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, it accepted contentious jurisdiction of the Court on February 12, 1991. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that, in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters it has under consideration, adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent. 3. According to Article 25(1) 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. [...] 4. Article 1(1) of the Convention stipulates the duty of the States Party to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in that treaty and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 5. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights unanimously decided in the judgment on the merits and reparations in the instant case: 3. [...] that the State must adopt in its domestic law, pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the legislative, administrative, and any other measures necessary to create an effective mechanism for delimitation, demarcation, and titling of the property of indigenous communities, in accordance with their common law, values, customs and mores, pursuant to what was set forth in paragraphs 138 and 164 of the [...] Judgment. [...] 4. [...] that the State must carry out the delimitation, demarcation, and titling of the corresponding lands of the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community and, until that delimitation, demarcation and titling has been done, it must abstain from any acts that might lead the agents of the State itself, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or its tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of the property located in the geographic area where the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community live and carry out their activities, the above in accordance with what was set forth in paragraphs 153 and 164 of the [...] Judgment. 6. The background information supplied by the representatives of the victims in their request (supra “Having seen” 2, 3, and 4) demonstrates the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency regarding the property of the Mayagna Community, including the resources therein, which are the basis for their subsistence, culture, and traditions. In this regard, the Court has recognized the importance of taking into account certain aspects of the customs of the indigenous peoples of the American continent when applying the American Convention on Human Rights2 […] 2 I.A. Court of H.R., Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) Inter-American Convention on Human Rights). February 22, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 91, para. 81; I.A. Court of H.R., Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 1, para. 149 and I.A. Court of H.R., Aloeboetoe et al.