4 6. The brief of February 12, 2002, in which the State stated that “it fully agreed with all the terms of the position expressed by the Inter-American Commission in its note of February 12, 2002”. CONSIDERING: 1. That Mexico ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on March 24, 1981, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) on December 16, 1998. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that “in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons”, at the request of the Commission, the Court may order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in the matters it has under consideration. 3. That, in the terms of Article 25(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”): [a]t 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. 4. That, in the terms of Article 25(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[i]f 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.” 5. That, in international human rights law, provisional measures have not only a preventive nature, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but are fundamentally protective, because they protect human rights. Provided that the basic requires of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are present, provisional measures of protection become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature, by seeking to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 6. That the President considers that, although José Francisco Gallardo is free, his life and safety could be at risk, so that it is necessary to maintain the urgent measures adopted by the President (supra second “having seen” paragraph), which ordered the State to adopt all necessary measures to avoid irreparable damage to José Francisco Gallardo. 7. That it is the State’s responsibility to adopt security measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction. This obligation is even more apparent in relation to those involved in cases before the supervisory organs of the American Convention.