7 7. That provisional measures are of an exceptional nature; they are ordered in function of the needs for protection and, once ordered must be maintained, provided the Court considers that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by them subsist.3 8. That the provision established in Article 63(2) of the Convention makes it obligatory for the State to adopt the provisional measures ordered by the Court, because, according to the basic principle of the law on the State’s international responsibility, supported by international case law, the States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).4 * * * 9. That, from the information presented by the State, the Commission and the representatives, it is clear that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and of possible irreparable damage to the right to life and integrity of the beneficiaries of the urgent measures ordered by the President persists (supra Having seen paragraph 7). In particular, it is worth emphasizing that, while the precautionary measures ordered by the Commission were in force, Freddy Peccerelli, his family, and FAAFG officials have received death threats, including three threats so far this year (supra Having seen paragraphs 2(j) and (m), and 3(d) and (f)), all related to the Foundation’s work concerning the identification and recovery of human remains. 10. That, to date, the investigations to determine the person or persons responsible for the threats against members of FAFG have not produced any results (supra Having seen paragraph 2(l)). 11. That the State has indicated that it is aware that the facts denounced have not yet been clarified by the criminal prosecution body (supra Having seen paragraph 9(f)). In addition, it stressed that the efforts made to date were “insufficient to avoid and/or counteract the illegal acts committed against the Peccerelli Monterroso family and the other members of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation” (supra Having seen paragraph 9(h)). 12. That the State has the specific obligation to protect those persons who work in non-governmental organizations, as well as other groups or individuals who work in favor of the defense of human rights, since their work makes a positive and complementary contribution to the efforts of the State in its capacity as guarantor of the right of all persons under its jurisdiction.5 3 Cf. the case of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, seventh considering paragraph. 4 Cf. the case of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, tenth considering paragraph; the case of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó Communities. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, seventh considering paragraph; and the case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic case. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, eighth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. the case of the Monagas Judicial Detention Center “La Pica”. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, fourteenth considering paragraph.