3. Pursuant to the terms of Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: 2 1. 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. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 5. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. […] 8. When the Court considers it appropriate, it may require from other sources of information any relevant data on the matter that would permit it to assess the gravity and urgency of the situation and the effectiveness of the measures. To that end, it may also require expert opinions and any other report that it considers appropriate. 4. The following request for provisional measures does not stem from a case before the Court, nor has an initial application been filed before the Inter-American Commission regarding the same facts that form the basis of this request for provisional measures. Notwithstanding, this Court has established in previous cases that “in light of the precautionary nature of the measures, exceptionally, it is possible that the Court order the measures even when no contentious case exists before the Inter-American System, in situations that, prima facie, result in serious or urgent effects on human rights.3 In this regard, the Court has noted that in this type of situations, it must take into account, in addition to the requirements established in Article 63 of the Convention, the problem at hand, the effectiveness of the actions taken by the State in regard to the situation, and the degree of vulnerability faced by the persons whom the measures are for if the measures are not adopted. In this sense, the Court reiterates that in these cases, the Commission must present “sufficient justification that encompasses the abovementioned criteria and that the State not demonstrate in a clear or sufficient manner the effectiveness of the measures that were adopted in domestic jurisdiction.” 4 5. This Court has established that under the International Human Rights Law, the provisional measures are not only precautionary in the sense that they preserve a legal situation, but they are also mainly protective since they protect human rights, insofar as they avoid irreparable damage to people. 5 The protective nature of the provisional measures is related to the framework of the International contentious realm. In this sense, the measures are aimed at preserving those rights that are in a state of possible risk until the controversy is resolved. Their purpose and objective is to assure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits, and in this way avoid harm to the rights under litigation, a situation that could render the effet util of the decision meaningless. As such, the provisional measures allow the State in question to comply with the final decision, and where necessary, proceed with the ordered reparations. 6 In regard to the protective nature, 2 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court in its LXXXV Period of Regular Sessions held on November 16 to 28, 2009. 3 Cf. Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Facility, Provisional Measures regarding Brazil, order of the Court of February 25, 2001, Considering clause 6 and Matter of Guerrero Larez regarding Venezuela, order of the Court of November 17, 2009, Considering clause 8. 4 Cf. Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Facility, Provisional Measures regarding Brazil, order of the Court of February 25, 2001, Considering clause 6 and Matter of Guerrero Larez regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, Considering clause 8. 5 Cf. Case of Newspaper “La Nación”. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, Considering clause 4, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the President in exercise of the Court of December 6, 2012, Considering clause 5. 6 Cf. Matter of El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order 4