3. The stipulation enshrined in Article 63(2) of the Convention confers an obligatory nature to the provisional measures ordered by the Court, given that a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, indicates that States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 These orders imply a special duty of protection to the beneficiaries of the measures, as long as the latter are in force, and failure to comply with them may generate international responsibility for the State.2 In this sense, it is appropriate to recall that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations that fall upon the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms acknowledged in the same and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, which are imposed not only with regard to the State’s power but also with regard to the actions of individual third parties.3 4. Article 63(2) of the Convention demands that for the Court to be able to order provisional measures three conditions must be present: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) the need “to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Likewise, the three conditions described must persist in order for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them ceases to be present, the Tribunal must assess the appropriateness of continuing with the protection ordered.4 5. The Court observes that the information recently provided by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State refers specifically to the situation that prevails at the El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Centers as of June 12, 2011, date on which a riot, allegedly motivated by a change of power amongst the imprisoned population, was recorded; the same caused the death of inmates and people present therein, as well as injuries. Based on the entity and urgency of the information presented, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to refer only to the current situation in said prison in the present Order. 1 Cfr. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, Considering Clause number six; Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, Considering Clause number three, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, Considering Clause number four. 2 Cfr. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196 through 200; Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 1, Considering Clause number three, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, Considering Clause number four. 3 Cfr. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering Clause number eleven; Matter of Alvarado Reyes, supra note 1, Considering Clause number twenty-four, and Matter of the Ciudad Bolívar Judicial Detention Center “Vista Hermosa Prison”. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, Considering Clause number sixteen. 4 Cfr. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering Clause number fourteen; Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 1, Considering Clause number four, and Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 22, 2011, Considering clause number two. 4