7 3. Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure1 establishes: 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, 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. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. […] 4. Article 63(2) of the Convention confers an obligatory nature on the provisional measures ordered by the Court, given that the basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, has indicated that States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 5. The present request for provisional measures is not related to any case currently before the Court, but rather arose from information submitted to the Inter-American Commission by the non-governmental organization Una Ventana a la Libertad represented by Carlos Nieto Palma. Consequently, the Court is unaware of whether the information before it forms part of a separate contentious case before the inter-American system or whether a petition on the merits has been initiated before the Inter-American Commission related to this request. 6. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only preventive in the sense that they preserve a legal situation, but fundamentally protective because they protect human rights inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The order to adopt provisional measures is applicable provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to prevent irreparable damage to persons are met. In this way, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 7. The Court has found it necessary to clarify that, in light of the protective nature of provisional measures, they may be ordered, exceptionally, even when there is no contentious case before the inter-American system, in situations that, prima facie, may have a grave and urgent effect on the enjoyment of human rights. Therefore, the Court 1 Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, approved during its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering clause; Matter of the Aragua Detention Center “Tocorón Prison.” Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, fourth considering clause, and Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, fourth considering clause. 3 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering clause; Matter of the Socioeducational Detention Unit. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2011, fourth considering clause, and Matter of the Aragua Detention Center “Tocorón Prison,” supra note 2, sixth considering clause.