5 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” at the request of the Commission, the Court may adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters that are not yet submitted to its consideration. 3. That Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes that “at any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention.” 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention embodies the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 5. That, under international human rights law, in addition to their preventive nature in that they preserve a juridical situation, the purpose of provisional measures is essentially preventive, since they must protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applicable provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met. In this way, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.1 6. That the Court, in the Order issued on April 16, 1997 (supra Having seen paragraph 1), required the State, inter alia, to adopt all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Gonzalo Arias Alturo, Javier Paez, Guillermo Guerrero Zambrano, Élida Gonzalez and Maria Nodelia Parra and avoid irreparable damage; and to investigate the acts of intimidation that the beneficiaries had endured and punish those responsible for such acts. 7. That the Court, in its Order of June 3, 1999 (supra Having seen paragraph 3), lifted and terminated the provisional measures for Guillermo Guerrero Zambrano and Javier Páez. It also requested the State, inter alia, to maintain the measures ordered on April 16, 1997 (supra Having seen paragraph 1) for María Nodelia Parra, Gonzalo Arias Alturo and Élida González Vergel; to provide information on the measures adopted owing to the changes in the situation of Gonzalo Arias Alturo and Élida González Vergel; and to present specific information on the participation of the beneficiaries in the decisions concerning compliance with the Court’s orders. 8. That, on February 2, 2005, the State indicated, inter alia, that “the petitioners have not mentioned the situation of Élida González Vergel for the last five years and no report or request has been received from the beneficiary herself.” On June 10, 2005, the State indicated, inter alia, that nothing new had occurred with regard to the situation of Élida González Vergel, so that “her intention to remove herself from the sphere of action of both the State and the petitioners” could be presumed. 1 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights March 30, 2006, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of the Capital Region Yare I and Yare II Penitentiary Center (Yaré Prison). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, fifth considering paragraph; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José Apartado. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 15, 2005, fourth considering paragraph.