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 signifies that the adoption by the State of the provisional measures ordered by this Court is compulsory, because a basic principle of international law, upheld by international case law, indicates that States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 3. According to Article 27(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, “at any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention.” 4. Under international human rights law, the purpose of provisional measures is not merely precautionary, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but essentially protective because they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applicable provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons are met. In this way, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 a) Request of the representative and observations of the parties 5. The victim’s representative indicated that, in a judgment of September 23, 2010, handed down by the National Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru “IN RESPONSE [to the] supreme writ of execution” of November 23, 2009, that “ordered the arrest” of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores and, “since it appears from the case file that there is no record of the official note sent to the Requisition Division of the National Police, the prompt national or international location and arrest [of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores] is ORDERED.” In this regard, the representative indicated that: a) “The location and arrest warrant ordered by the State” is “imminent” and poses “a serious threat to the liberty” of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, “because it was issued after the Court had decided […] in its Order of September 1, 2010, that the State had not observed the requirements of the principles of legality, non-retroactivity and due process in the second trial of Mrs. De La Cruz; and ordered that the State ensure that the legal consequences of that non-compliance would not give rise to any charges against the victim”; b) “The adoption of a provisional measure by the Court would avoid the detention of Mrs. De La Cruz; otherwise nothing could prevent it,” and c) “The purpose of the measure is […] to avoid irreparable damage” because “[the] return [of Mrs. De La Cruz] to prison under […] conditions [characterized as cruel, inhuman and degrading] would result in her 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; Matter of María Lourdes Afiuni. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 10, 2010, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luis Galdámez Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010, third considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of the “La Nacion” Newspaper. Provisional Measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of María Lourdes Afiuni, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luis Galdámez Álvarez et al., supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph. 2