6. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that “[i]n 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 matters not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” This provision is, in turn, regulated in Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and is obligatory in accordance with a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, whereby States are required to comply with international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). 2 7. 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. 3 In this sense, Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that, for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, three conditions must concur: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency” and (iii) that the purpose is to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court is asked to intervene. In the same way, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 4 8. Pursuant to its jurisdiction, within the framework of provisional measures, the Court can only consider the merits of arguments relating strictly and directly to extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Thus, in order to decide whether to maintain the provisional measures in effect, the Court must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or whether new circumstances, which are equally grave and urgent, warrant keeping them in force. Any other issue may only be brought to the Court’s attention by means of a contentious case. 5 a) Implementation of the provisional measures and the situation of risk 9. Subsequent to the Order of the Court, the State submitted a report regarding the agreements reached, through a work meeting held on April 23, 2013, in which the beneficiary and high-ranking authorities of the State, at both the federal and local level, participated. During the aforementioned meeting, the parties agreed, inter alia, that: 2 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 clause 6, and Matter of Dottin et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 14, 2013, considering clause 3. 3 Case of the newspaper “La Nación”. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, considering clause 4, and Matter of B. Provisional measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 29, 2013, considering clause 5. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, considering clause 14, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Perú. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, considering clause 3. 5 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, considering clause 6, and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2013, considering clause 5. 2