5 endorsed by the international case law, the States must comply with their conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 5. That by means of Order of May 12, 2007 the Court ordered the State to maintain the measures it has adopted, and to adopt forthwith all necessary measures to protect the life and physical integrity of all the beneficiaries of these provisional measures (supra Having Seen clause 1). 6. That the instant case is not pending with the Court for a decision on the merits; therefore, the adoption of provisional measures does not imply a decision on the merits of the dispute between the petitioners and the State. In adopting provisional measures, the Court is merely securing that it may faithfully execute its mandate under the Convention in cases of extreme gravity and urgency that require the adoption of protection measures to avoid irreparable damage to persons.2 7. That the representatives pointed out in their observations that the various administrative and judicial proceedings started against Major Adrián Meléndez-Quijano have deprived him “not o[n]ly of the material resources which are due to him as a result of his work status as an active-duty officer, but also of essential time to be devoted to […] his family life” (supra Having Seen clause 3(a)) and, therefore, they requested the Court to order the State to “provisionally suspend all administrative and judicial proceedings started against the above-mentioned person, either under the ordinary jurisdiction or the special military courts.” 8. That the Inter-American Commission informed that the request filed by the representatives before the Court, regarding the adoption of provisional measures, has been included in a petition filed before the Commission, which is being processed (supra Having Seen clause 2 and 4(a)). 9. That in matters regarding provisional measures, the Court may not examine any arguments other than those which are directly and strictly related to situations of extreme gravity and urgency which require the adoption of protection measures to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other arguments or facts may only be examined and determined by the Court when considering the merits of contentious cases brought before the Court.3 1 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 6; Matter of Meléndez-Quijano et al. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 12, 2007, Considering clause 6; Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering clause 8; and Matter of Colotenango. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering clause 5. 2 Cf. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, Considering clause 11; Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2004, Considering clause 10; and Matters of “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” Newspapers. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004, Considering clause 13. 3 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 20, 1998, Considering clause 6; Matter of Castañeda-Gutman. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2005, Considering clause 8; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of February 7, 2006, Considering clause 7; and Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July3, 2007,