1. 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. […] 3. In contentious cases before the Court, victims or alleged victims, or their representatives, may submit to it a request for provisional measures, which must be related to the subject matter of the case. […] 5. If the Court is not sitting, the President, in consultation with the Permanent Commission and, if possible, with the other judges, shall call upon the government concerned to adopt such urgent measures as may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of any provisional measures that may be ordered by the Court at its next session. […] 4. According to Article 63(2) of the Convention, the provisional measures ordered by the Court are binding on the State, because a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, indicates that States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).4 5. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only preventive, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, they are also essentially protective because they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons.5 Provisional measures are applicable provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met. Thus, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.6 6. This request for provisional measures is related to a case before the Court, regarding which a Judgment was issued on April 27, 20127. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires the concurrence of three conditions for the Court to order provisional measures: a) “extreme gravity”; b) “urgency”, and c) the need to “avoid irreparable damage” to persons. These three conditions must coexist and must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested.8 4 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 para. 6, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 13, 2012, Considering para. 2. 5 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación”. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering para. 4, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra, Considering para. 3. 6 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación””. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering para. 4, and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 25, 2012, Considering para. 4. 7 Cf. Case Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, supra. 8 Cf. Case Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering para. 14, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru, Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 6, 2012, Considering para. 3. 3