3 3. The terms of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court1 (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”) establish in relevant part 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 […] 7. The monitoring of urgent or provisional measures ordered shall be carried out through the submission of reports by the State and the filing of observations to those reports by the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives. The Commission shall submit observations to the State’s reports and to the observations of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives. […] 4. Pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention, the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court corresponds to a basic principle of law on the international responsibility of States, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith These obligations imply a special duty to protect the (pacta sunt servanda).2 beneficiaries of the measures while they remain in effect, and failure to comply with them my result in international liability on the part of the State.3 5. In International Human Rights Law, provisional measures not only have a precautionary character, in the sense that they preserve a legally cognizable situation, but also a fundamentally protective one as they seek to safeguard human rights and avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applied as long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to prevent irreparable harm to persons are met. Thus, provisional measures are transformed in a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.4 6. In accordance with the Court’s Order of May 26, 2010, the State must adopt the provisional measures necessary to determine the whereabouts of Irene Alvarado Reyes, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera as well as to protect their lives, right to humane treatment, and person freedom. In the present Order, the Tribunal will analyze: (i) the implementation of provisional measures in favor of the aforementioned beneficiaries and (ii) the request to extend provisional measures in 1 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved during its LXXXV Regular Session held from November 1628, 2009. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, Considering clause six; Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 2, 2010, Considering clause three; and Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility "Tocorón Prison". Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 1, 2010, Considering clause four. 3 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196-200; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering clause ninety; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 26, 2010, Considering clause three. 4 Cf. Case of “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering clause four; Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, supra note 2, Considering clause six; and Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility “Tocorón Prison", supra note 2, Considering clause six.