10 based on international case law, has indicated that States must comply with their obligations under the Convention in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).5 5. This request for provisional measures is not related to a case before the Court. Rather, it originated in a request for precautionary measures presented before the InterAmerican Commission. This President does not have information on whether the facts brought to the attention of the Tribunal form part of an adversarial proceeding before the Inter-American system or if a petition on the merits related with this request has has been brought before the Inter-American Commission. 6. In International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not solely precautionary, in the sense that they preserve the legal situation. Rather they are fundamentally tutelary, in that they protect human rights by seeking to prevent irreparable damage to persons. An order to take measures is applicable as long as it meets the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to persons. In this way, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventative nature.6 7. The Court has previously found it necessary to clarify that, given the tutelary nature of provisional measures, in exceptional cases and even when there is no specific adversarial case before the Inter-American system, it is possible for the Court to order them in situations in which, prima facie, the grave and urgent infraction of human rights could take place. To do so, the Court must weigh the problem in question, the effectiveness of State actions given the situation described, and the degree of lack of protection faced by individuals for whom the measures are requested in the event that the measures are not adopted. To do so, it is necessary for the Inter-American Commission to have presented sufficient grounds that meet the aforementioned standards and for the State to have failed to clearly and sufficiently demonstrate the effectiveness of the specific measures that it has adopted domestically.7 8. It should be recalled that given a request for provisional measures, the Court can only consider those arguments that are directly related to extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damages to persons. Any additional fact or argument not related with the purpose of this provisional measures proceeding shall not be considered for, where 5 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, Considering six; Matter of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó Communities. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, Considering 4, and Matter of Centro Penitenciario de Aragua "Cárcel de Tocorón.” Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, Considering 4. 6 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación.” Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering 4; Case of De La Cruz Flores. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering 74, and and Matter of Centro Penitenciario de Aragua "Cárcel de Tocorón.” Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 24, 2010, Considering 6. 7 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated February 8, 2008, Considering 9; Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, Considering 8, and Matter of Centro Penitenciario de Aragua "Cárcel de Tocorón.” Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 24, 2010, Considering 7.