6 Didier Usuga, Fidelina Sepúlveda, Edilia Quintero, Ramiro Rueda, María Quintero, Yorladis Rueda, Yorman Rueda, Jarlin Rueda, Uber Areiza, Alicia Guzmán, Otoniel Guzmán, Alba Guzmán, Jair Guzmán, Yudi Guzmán, Francisco Higuita, Nohemi Tuberquia, Marlobe Higuita, Edilson Tuberquia, Heider Higuita, Deison Higuita, Francisco Higuita, Miro David, Uber Areiza, Teresa Guzmán, Jhon Guzmán, Beyanira Areiza, Davidson Areiza, Ramón Tuberquia, Angela Guzmán, Luis Tuberquia, Miladis Tuberquia, Luis Albeiro Tuberquia, Yulie Guzmán, and Norber Sepúlveda. 5. The Inter-American Commission has requested the State to adopt the precautionary measures, which have not rendered to the pursued protective effects, and that; on the contrary, the facts that have occurred recently make presume that the integrity and the lives of the members of the Community of Paz de San José de Apartadó are at a serious risk. Consequently, there are circumstances that make necessary to ask the State to adopt urgent measures in order to prevent irreparable . harm to said people 1 6. Article 1(1) of the Convention states the duty of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to guarantee free and full exercise for every person who is subjected to its jurisdiction, included, in this case, the inhabitants of the Community of Paz de San José de Apartadó. 7. On other occasions this Court has considered that it is essential to individualize the people who are in danger of suffering irreparable harm, in order to provide them with protective measures2; moreover, the protective measures adopted by the State in compliance with the decisions issued by the Court or its President are expected to benefit other people of the same community that may be in the same situation of vulnerability and risk. 8. As has been asserted by this Court, “it is the State’s responsibility to adopt security measures to protect every people who are subjected to its jurisdiction; this duty becomes even more evident in relation to those who are involved in processes before the supervising organs of the American Convention.”3 9. The purpose of the provisional measures, in the national juridical systems (internal procedural law) in general, is to preserve the rights of the parties in dispute, guaranteeing that the future merit decision is not harmed by their actions pendente lite.4 10. The purpose of the provisional measures, in the International Law of Human Rights, goes beyond this, since, besides its essentially preventive nature, they 1 Cf Case of Alvarez et al., Provisional Measures. Decision of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 22, 1997. Series E No.2, sixth considering clause. 2 Cf. Case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic, Provisional Measures. Decision of August 18, 2000, eighth considering clause; Case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic, Provisional Measures. Decision of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 14, 2000. 3 Cf. Case of Digna Ochoa y Plácido et al., Provisional Measures. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, seventh considering clause; Case of the Constitutional Court, Provisional Measures. Decision of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 7, 2000, ninth considering clause; and Case of the Constitutional Court, Provisional Measures. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 14, 2000, ninth considering clause. 4 Case of the Constitutional Court, Provisional Measures. Decision of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of April 7, 2000, tenth considering clause.