5 illegally. Nevertheless, those responsible for this illegal tree felling had not been punished; and ii. “The grave situation of lack of protection in which [the members of] the Awas Tigni Community live continues, and there have even been death threats against its members by third parties interested in the natural resources on the Community’s territory.” CONSIDERING: 1. That the State ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on September 25, 1979, and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on February 12, 1991. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when is necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration.” 3. That Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court stipulates that, “[a]t any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when is necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention.” 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention embodies the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. This obligation is even more evident in relation to those who are involved in proceedings before the organs of supervision of the American Convention. 5. That the States Parties to the Convention must comply with its provisions in good faith, which corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State (pacta sunt servanda).1 Also, they must ensure the inherent effects of such provisions (effet utile).2 6. That, under international human rights law, the purpose of provisional measures is not merely precautionary, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but they are essentially protective because they protect human rights inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of 1 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, third considering paragraph; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of July 12, 2007, sixth considering paragraph; and Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of July 10, 2007, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 24, para. 37; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of October 18, 2007, fourth considering paragraph, and the Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 1, seventh considering paragraph.