representatives, "this possibility cannot be discounted.” In addition, the Commission provided, inter alia, a copy of the complaint filed by Rodeline Joseph before the Justice of the Peace of the Petit Goâve municipality regarding the events that occurred on December 26, 2009 (supra having seen paragraph 8). Lastly, the Commission reiterated the difficulty of communicating with the representatives, a situation exacerbated by the above-mentioned earthquake. 12. The communication of July 23, 2010, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President of the Court, reminded the State and the representatives that the time limit for submitting updated information on the situation of the beneficiaries had expired on July 16, 2010, and therefore requested that the information be forwarded as soon as possible. 13. The brief of August 18, 2010, in which the Inter-American Commission forwarded a brief of the representatives in which the latter, inter alia, referred to events that occurred before the adoption of provisional measures, or that were not related to the beneficiaries or to the alleged facts being examined in this proceeding. 14. The communication of August 28, 2010, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President of the Court, reminded the State that the time limit for forwarding updated information on the situation of the beneficiaries had expired, and requested that the information be sent as soon as possible. 15. The State has not responded to the Court’s requests, and neither the Commission nor the representatives have provided further information since that date. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Haiti has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 27, 1977, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 20, 1998. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With regard to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” This provision is, in turn, regulated by Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.1 3. The provisions established in Article 63(2) of the Convention signify that the adoption by the State of the provisional measures that this Court orders it to take is compulsory, because the basic principle of the law on State responsibility, upheld by international case law, indicates that States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 1 Rules of Procedures approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 3