and e) reported on the appointment of Cesar Manuel Saldaña Ramírez, Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s lawyer, as provisional judge of the Provincial Court of Chupaca-Junín. 3. The briefs submitted between January 22, 2010, and July 8, 2011, and their attachments, in which the State addressed: a) the measures of protection adopted with regard to the beneficiaries; b) the information submitted by the representatives in compliance with the Tribunal’s request in its last order, and regarding alleged new facts suffered by Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza; (c) the investigation into the facts that led to the adoption of the provisional measures; (d) the investigations against Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza, and (e) alleged illegal acts committed by Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza. Peru asked that the provisional measures be lifted. 4. The briefs submitted between May 7, 2010, and August 8, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) forwarded its observations on the information provided by the representatives and by the State. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on July 28, 1978, and pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. 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 may, in matters not yet submitted for its consideration, and at the request of the Commission, order the provisional measures that it deems pertinent. This provision is, in turn, regulated in Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.1 3. The provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention confer an obligatory nature on the State’s adoption of the provisional measures that this Court orders it to take, as the basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, indicates that States must comply with their treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 4. 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 harm to persons. The measures are applicable provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable harm to persons are met. In this way, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 1 Rules of Procedure passed in the LXXXV Ordinary Period of Sessions held on November 16-28, 2009. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, 19, Considering six, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2011, Considering 3. 3 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación.” Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, 19, Considering 4, and Matter of Haitians 2