its own motion, order whatever provisional measures 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. […] 4. That in International Law of Human Rights, provisional measures have a character that is not only cautionary in the sense of preserving a legal situation, but also fundamental to give protection to Human Rights, to the extent that they seek to avoid irreparable damages to persons. The measures are applied as long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and of the prevention of irreparable damages to persons are met. In this way, provisional measures transform into a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventative character.1 5. That the disposition established in Article 63(2) of the Convention grants an obligatory character to the adoption, by the State, of the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal, given that the basic principle of the Law of State Responsibility, supported by international jurisprudence, has pointed out that the States shall fulfill their conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 * * * 6. That the present request for provisional measures is not related with a case submitted to the Court, but originated by a request of provisional measures presented before the Inter-American Commission. The Court does not rely upon information regarding the facts submitted to the Court as part of a contentious case before the Inter-American System, or that began as a petition before the Inter-American Commission regarding the merits related with the request. 7. That in earlier opportunities, this Court interpreted that the phrase “a case not yet submitted to the Court” contained in the Article 63(2) in fine of the American Convention, poses, at least, the existence of a possibility that the matter that justifies the request of provisional measures can be submitted to the consideration of the Tribunal in its contentious jurisdiction. That in order for such minimum possibility to exist, the procedure shall have been initiated before the Commission as established in Articles 44 and 46 to 48 of the American Convention.3 1 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001. Considering fourth; Matter of Fernandez Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 30, 2009, Considering fifth, and Case Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia). Provisional Measures regarding Brazil, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 15, 2009, Considering fourth. Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, Considering sixth; Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering fourth, and Matter of Fernandez Ortega et al., supra note 1, Considering sixth. 2 3 Cf. Matter of García Uribe et al. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Considering third and fourth; and 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 of February 8, 2008, Considering fifth.