-111. That Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, and, pursuant to Article 63 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in the act of ratification. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that: In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. That, in this regard, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure establishes 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. If the Court is not sitting, the President, in consultation with the Permanent Commission and, if possible, with the other judges, shall call upon the government concerned to adopt such urgent measures as may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of any provisional measures that may be ordered by the Court at its next session. 6. The beneficiaries of urgent measures or provisional measures ordered by the President may address their observations on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 7. The Court, or its President if the Court is not sitting, may convoke the parties to a public hearing on provisional measures. 4. That Article (1)1 of the Convention embodies the obligation of 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. Moreover, in this regard, the State’s position as guarantor of the rights of the persons in its custody is underscored. 5. That, under international human rights law, provisional measures are not merely preventive, in that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather they are essentially protective, since they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.2 6. That, from the background information presented by the Commission in its request, it is clear that this is related to a petition submitted by Mrs. Millacura Llaipén, which is at the merits stage before that organ. In this petition Mrs. Millacura 2 Cf. Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, fifth considering paragraph; and Matter of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó Communities. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, fifth considering paragraph; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, fifth considering paragraph.