has already been ordered and the respective reparations measures awarded, the Court has ordered provisional measures during the first stage of monitoring compliance. 24 All in accordance with the precautionary and protective nature of provisional measures because the American Convention provides only "factual information"25 for the Inter-American Court to order such measures. In other words, there is "a situation of extreme gravity and urgency" and "when it is necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons" while the case is before it. 26. Since it is the responsibility of the Inter-American Court to monitor compliance with its judgments, it is clear that the "consideration" of the case does not cease with the issuance of the ruling on the merits of the case and when the corresponding reparations are awarded. The jurisdictional power of the Court, like any judicial body, "is exercised by ruling and making rulings be exercised."26 This is because the Court "can[n]ot ignore the fate of its decisions, which are always mandatory for States and exempt from review by a higher court. The inter-American justice is exercised in one instance and the corresponding Convention states that the decisions of the Court are binding on the parties." 27 Therefore, the Court still legally has "consideration" of the case while compliance of the respective judgment is being verified by the Court. This has been reflected in the judgments of the Court where is has consistently has been set forth in the operative paragraphs, with varying wording, that "[p]ursuant to the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Court shall monitor the full compliance with this Judgment and it will close the [...] case once the State has fully implemented the provisions set forth thereof." Therefore, the Court's "consideration" the case ends only after the State has complied in full with the respective judgment and when the Court so declares, leaving no doubt, thus, that in that context the Court has perfect and strong jurisdiction in matters of provisional measures. 27. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court illustrates, incidentally, that even when a judgment has been passed there have been situations that endanger the rights involved in the decision of the Court and, therefore, hinder the effective compliance with the ruling. On this point, it should be noted that the Court has already ruled, "the effectiveness of judgments depends on their execution. The process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of this ruling."28 Therefore, on several occasions, the Court has ordered provisional measures, or has maintained provisional measures ordered prior to its decision on merits, during the monitoring of compliance with judgments, precisely because the compliance of its decisions 24 Cf. Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni . Provisional Measures regarding Nicaragua. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 6, 2002, operative paragraph one; Case of 19 Merchants. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 3, 2004, operative paragraph second, and Case of the Rochela Masacre. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 19, 2009, operative paragraph one. 25 Cf. García Ramírez, Sergio, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Mexico, Porrua, 2007, p. 68. 26 Gimeno Sendra, José Vicente, Fundamentos del Derecho Procesal, Madrid, Civitas, 1981, p. 31. 27 García Ramírez, Sergio, "Reflexiones sobre las medidas provisionales en la jurisdicción interamericana," presentation of the first edition by Cantor Rey, Ernesto and Rey Anaya, Angela Medidas provisionales y medidas cautelares en el sistema interamericano de derechos humanos 2nd Edition, Bogota, Temis, 2008, pp. XLIII y XLIV. 28 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73. 9