be a reason for lifting a measure of protection, particularly in the instant case in which it has been demonstrated that the death threats and murders occurred precisely after the arrests of the younger members of the family.” In particular, regarding Nestor Caudi Barrios, it pointed out that “[t]he fact that the beneficiary is not in the state of Aragua is no reason to declare ‘useless’ the protection in his favor” and expressed “its deep concern over his security and health after the attack he suffered.” 21. Regarding the State’s requests to lift the measures, the Court emphasizes, in the first place, that Edison Alexander Barrios is not a beneficiary of the provisional measures ordered by the Court in the present case (supra Considering para. 5). Therefore it is not appropriate for this Court to rule on State’s request to lift the measures in respect of this person or on his alleged procedural situation, without prejudice to the fact that he could be a beneficiary of protection measures at the domestic level. 22. In the second place, the Court notes that the State requested the lifting of the provisional measures ordered in favor of Nestor Caudi Barrios and Víctor Daniel Cabrera Barrios, based on: (i) the alleged change of residence of Nestor Caudi Barrios to an area outside the state of Aragua, without having previously notified the State, and (ii) the procedural situation of Víctor Daniel Cabrera Barrios. 23. Accordingly, the Court recalls that, upon requesting the lifting of provisional measures, the State must present sufficient evidence and arguments to enable the Court to determine whether the situation of the respective beneficiary no longer meets the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage (supra Considering para. 16). 24. In relation to Nestor Caudi Barrios, the Court notes that, during the hearing held on March 7, 2012, his representative was informed that the domestic measure of protection granted in his favor “was useless” because he lived outside the jurisdiction of the state of Aragua. In this regard, the Court considers it timely to reiterate that States Parties to the American Convention must guarantee compliance with the conventional provisions and their effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. 11 Thus, the State has an obligation to adopt the measures necessary to protect the life and integrity of the beneficiaries of provisional measures in any part of its territory or jurisdiction. The obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court corresponds to a basic principle of International Law (pacta sunt servanda), according to which States cannot, for reasons of domestic law, avoid assuming their pre-established international responsibilities. 12 Moreover, the treaty-based obligations of the States Parties are binding on all State authorities and organs. 13 In the context of contentious cases, the Court has established that the States Parties must ensure respect for and guarantee all the rights enshrined in the American Convention to all persons under their jurisdiction, without any limitation or exception based on said domestic organization. The regulatory system and practices of the entities that constitute a federal State Party to the Convention must conform to the American Convention. 14 11 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Court of September 24, 1999, para. 37, and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of November 24, 2010, Considering para. 6. 12 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Alban Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of February 5, 2013, Considering para. 5. 13 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, Considering para. 3, and Case of Alban Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Considering para. 5. 14 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 219. 8