American Commission”) submitted its observations on the State’s reports (supra second having seen paragraph) and the representatives’ briefs (supra third having seen paragraph). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 2. 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 shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With regard to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. In this regard, the pertinent part of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court1 (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”) establishes 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. […] 4. According to Article 63(2) of the Convention, the provisional measures ordered by the Court are binding for the State, because a basic principle of the law on State responsibility, supported by international case law, has indicated that States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 5. Under international human rights law provisional measures are not only preventive, in that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather they are essentially protective, since they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable harm to persons. Provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable harm to persons are met, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 6. Based on its competence, within the framework of provisional measures, the Court may consider only and strictly those arguments that are directly related to the extreme 1 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of A.J. et al. Provisional measures with regard to Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 22, 2011, third considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 4, 2011, tenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al, supra note 2, fifth considering paragraph. 2