4 5. That, as the Court has repeatedly held, it is the responsibility of the State to adopt measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction1 and this duty is particularly compelling in the case of persons currently the subject of a proceeding before the supervisory organs of the American Convention 2. 6. That, in light of the well-established principles regarding international state responsibility, whereby States are required to comply in good faith with their treaty obligations (pacta sunt servanda), urgent measures ordered by the President of this Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention have an obligatory character. Consequently, Barbados is under the obligation to keep this Tribunal informed regarding the actions it has taken to comply with the Order of the President. The provision of such information is essential in order to permit the Court to evaluate the State’s degree of compliance with the said Order. 7. That in this case the measures mandated are designed to allow the organs of the Inter-American system of human rights protection to evaluate the possible existence of a violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 8 of the American Convention. 8. That the representations made by the Commission in the present case (supra second “Having Seen”) reveal prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, rendering it necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the right to life and physical integrity of Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph. 9. That if the State were to execute the alleged victims, this would lead to an irreparable situation, as well as constitute conduct incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention3. 10. That the case under consideration is not before the Court, and the adoption of provisional measures, whose purpose in international human rights law is to protect fundamental human rights by seeking to avoid irreparable damage to persons, does not imply a decision on the merits of the controversy between the petitioners and the State. Upon ordering such measures, this Tribunal is ensuring only that it may faithfully exercise its mandate pursuant to the Convention in cases of extreme gravity and urgency4. 1 Cf. Case of Raxcacó et al. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, fifth “Considering”; Case of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2004, fourth “Considering”; and Case of Sarayaku Indigenous Community. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004, fourth “Considering”. 2 Cf. Case of Raxcacó et al. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, fifth “Considering”; Case of Gómez Paquiyauri. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2004, sixth “Considering”; and Case of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, fifth “Considering”. 3 Cf. Case of Raxcacó et al. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, ninth “Considering”; and Case of James et al. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2001, twelfth “Considering”. 4 Cf. Case of Raxcacó et al. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, eleventh “Considering”; Case of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2004, tenth “Considering”; and Case of Sarayaku Indigenous Community. Provisional Measures. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004, second “Considering”.