6 4. That Articles 25(1) and 25(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure stipulate that:: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when 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. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. 5. That the States Parties to the Convention must fulfill their conventional obligations in good faith, which is a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of States (pacta sunt servanda).1 They must also guarantee the effects of such provisions (effet utile).2 6. That by Orders of the Court dated September 19, 1995, February 1, 1996, September 10, 1996, June 19, 1998, November 27, 1998 and September 30, 1999, the State is obligated to undertake the measures of protection and investigation necessary to preserve the life and personal integrity of Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio and Karen Fischer de Carpio on whose behalf the Court ordered provisional measures. The Commission has an obligation to send its observations on the measures taken by the State, within six weeks of receiving the corresponding report. 7. That in the matter of the duty to investigate, the Court has repeatedly held that this duty must be carried out seriously and not as a mere formality destined to be unfruitful.3 8. That the State’s reports and the Commission’s observations reveal differences of opinion between the parties as to the measures actually taken by the State. Similarly, the documents supplied by the parties leave questions that the Court has to settle to decide whether or not the measures it ordered have been carried out. 9. That another essential element of the State’s duty to protect is that it must take all measures necessary to resolve the present and future situation of Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio and Karen Fischer de Carpio, in furtherance of its obligation to effectively ensure protection of their lives and personal integrity. 10. That by setting aside case No. 1011-97, the State failed to fulfill its obligation to investigate the threats targeted at Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio and Karen Fischer de Carpio; with that omission, the State is not taking the positive measures necessary to clarify the facts that necessitated these provisional measures. 1 Cfr., inter alia, Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Compliance with Judgment, Order of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Consideranda 4; Loayza Tamayo Case. Compliance with Judgment, Order of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 60, Consideranda 7; and the James, Briggs, Noel, García and Bethel.Cases, Provisional Measures. Order of June 14, 1998. Series E No. 2, consideranda 6. 2 Cf., inter alia, Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C. No. 54, par. 37; and Constitutional Court Case, Competence, Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C. No. 55, par. 36. 3 Cf., inter alia, Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, par. 123; Villagrán Morales et al. Case. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series No. 63, par. 226; Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, par. 188; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 177.