"is strongly related to the right to access to justice, which is embodied in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention." 29 Furthermore, the Inter-American Court has ordered the adoption of provisional measures after a decision to lift them, when during the monitoring of compliance events have taken place that, according to Article 63(2) of the Convention, have made them necessary. On this point, it is worth stating that the measures ordered in the case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. On January 29, 1997, the Court issued a judgment on reparations in this case. Two days later, the Court issued an order lifting the provisional measures it had previously ordered. But three months later, on April 16, 1997, the Court issued an order, again, providing for the adoption of these measures. This was not only at the request of representatives of the victims but also the State itself. What Colombia specifically requested on that occasion was: To [c]onsider the possibility of reviewing the content of the order [of January 31, 1997], and instead, to order the continuation of the measures ordered, as long as the risk situation continues, bearing in mind that the internal proceedings are currently being carried out by the investigating authorities [...] The Government of Colombia will inform the Honorable Court when it considers that the situation no longer warrants maintenance of the measures requested, but until then, it trusts that these will be maintained, inasmuch as it is a question of protecting the life and physical integrity of those persons who have given evidence in the proceedings now under way and at those conducted by the [...] Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 28. In this regard, in some decisions the Court has established a comparison between the provisional measures ordered by the Court and the precautionary measures, provisional or precautionary measures that are issued internally to ensure the effectiveness of domestic judgments or decisions: the purpose of the provisional measures in national (domestic procedural) legal systems generally is to protect the rights of contending parties, ensuring that the execution of judgments on the merits and reparations is not hindered or impeded by their conduct. under the International Law of Human Rights, provisional measures have, furthermore, a preventive purpose inasmuch as they are intended to protect human rights, preventing individuals from suffering irreparable harm.30 29. In this regard, in 2000 the Court ratified, during the monitoring of compliance with a previous ruling, provisional measures ordered prior to this stage. 31 This is the first precedent where the Court, during the monitoring of compliance with the respective judgment, decided to maintain the measures ordered prior to ruling on the merits. However, 29 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 28, para. 74. 30 Case of Massacre Plan de Sánchez (Salvador Jerónimo et al.) Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 8, 2004, Considering Clause five and six, and Integrantes del Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial (ECAP). Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2006, Considering Clause five and six. Case of Blake. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000, operative paragraph one. A year later, in the Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, the Court also continued the provisional measures ordered prior to the judgment on reparations issued in the case. Cf. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2001, operative paragraph two. 10