3 processes that have been carried out until now. On the other hand, following the instructions of the full Court, the Inter-American Commission was requested to report, within the same non-extendable term, on the following: a) the identification of the potential beneficiaries of the request for provisional measures, taking into account the alleged detriment of 4000 members of communities neighboring Charco La Pava, Valle del Rey, Guayabal and Changuinola Arriba, and b) refer to specific facts, if any, related to restrictions to the freedom of movement of the Ngöbe community members in 2009 and 2010. 7. The information and observations presented by the State on March 15 and 27, April 19 and 30, and May 5, 2010. The Commission was requested to present its observations regarding the information submitted by the State. 8. The information and observations presented by the Inter-American Commission on March 15 and 26, April 30, and May 21, 2010. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Panama is a State Party to the American Convention since May 8, 1978, and that it recognized the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that “[i]n 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 respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. The Court has indicated that provisional measures have two characters: precautionary and protective.1 The precautionary character is related to the framework of international contentious cases, as provisional measures intend to preserve the rights potentially at risk until the controversy is resolved. Their goal is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on merits, and to avoid infringement of the rights under consideration, which could render innocuous or have an effect on the effet utile of the final decision. Provisional measures therefore allow the State in question to comply with the final decision, and, if applicable, to implement the reparations ordered.2 With regards to the protective character, the Court has indicated that provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature as they protect human rights, to the extent that they seek to avoid irreparable damages to persons.3 1 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper). Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering four; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 15, 2010, Considering six, and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2010, Considering three. 2 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering fourteen; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 15, 2010, Considering six; Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2010, Considering three. 3 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper). Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering four; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights