interpretation which is harmonious with a natural and reasonable way of reading the text [...]."18 III. The jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to order provisional measures to monitor compliance with judgments. 21. The Convention stipulates that the Inter-American Court may order provisional measures "in matters brought before the Court." The Tribunal has continually interpreted this provision using its constant jurisprudence and its various Rules of Procedure, throughout its thirty years of operation, in the sense that it may order such measures "at any stage of proceedings." Thus, on January 15, 1988, the Court ordered provisional measures for the first time in three cases brought before it. 19 In practice, it has largely been at this stage of the procedure that the Court has ordered provisional measures. 22. The Court has already made numerous references to the precautionary and protective nature of these types of measures: Under the International Law of Human Rights, provisional measures are not only precautionary in nature, in the sense that they safeguard a legal situation, but they are also fundamentally protective because they protect human rights, insofar as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are implemented whenever all the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency, and of preventing irreparable harm to people, are present. Thus, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee, which is preventive in nature.20 23. However, with regard to the dual nature of provisional measures, the Court has also stated that: [t]he precautionary nature of the provisional measures is connected to the framework of international adversarial cases. In such sense, these measures are intended to preserve those rights, which are at risk until the controversy is finally settled. Its purpose is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits and in this way, avoid the litigious rights being impaired, situation which may adversely affect the useful purpose of the final decision. The provisional measures make it possible for the State in question, in this sense, to comply with the final decision and, if applicable, to go ahead with the reparations so ordered. As to the protective nature of the provisional measures, this Court has [stated] that, providing the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency as well as avoidance of irreparable damage of people are met, provisional measures are transformed in a true judicial guarantee of precautionary 18 Cf. Case of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case (United Kingdom v. Iran), Preliminary Objection, Judgment of July 22, 1952, p. 104. 19 Cf. Cases of Velásquez Rodríguez, Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales, and Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988. The Court was informed the in the State witnesses who appeared before the Court were being killed. 20 Case of the "La Nación" Newspaper. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering Clause four. 7