5 d) on April 10, 11, 18, and 25 of 2007, José Roberto Burgos Viale, attorney with IDHUCA, received threatening phone calls from a number identified and others identified only as a “private line”; and e) requested that the Court order the State to effectively implement the measures granted. 10. The Commission’s communication of April 27, 2007, in which it indicated that it “appreciate[d] the initial acts undertaken in order to implement the Order of the Court. […] The information provided does not demonstrate that the protective measures have been put into practice. As a result, it awaits concrete information from the State”. CONSIDERING: 1. That El Salvador is a State Party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978 and that, in accordance with article 62 of the Convention, it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 2. That 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 may with regard to cases not yet submitted to its consideration, at the request of the Commission, order whatever provisional measures it deems pertinent. 3. That, on the subject of Provisional Measures, article 25 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: […] 2. With regard to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 6. The beneficiaries of urgent measures or provisional measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. […] 4. That article 1(1) of the Convention establishes that a State Party is obliged to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention, and to guarantee the free and full enjoyment of these rights for everyone within its jurisdiction. Thus, the State’s position as guarantor of Convention rights within its jurisdiction is emphasized. These obligations become even more evident to those individuals currently in proceedings before the supervisory organs of the Inter-American system 2. 5. That, under International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not only precautionary in the sense that they maintain a legal situation, but fundamentally protective because they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to prevent irreparable damage to individuals. Provisional measures may be applied whenever the 2 Cf. Matter of Gloria Giralt de García Prieto and others. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2007, fifth considering clause; Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, fourth considering clause; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, fourth considering clause.