5 18. The communication of September 12, 2005, in which the State requested an additional amount of time to submit information to the Court regarding the present provisional measures. 19. The communication sent by the Secretariat of the Court on March 17, 2009, by which the Inter-American Commission was requested to inform whether there are petitions pending before that body, pursuant to Articles 44 and 46 through 48 of the American Convention, on behalf of the following beneficiaries: Andrew Dottin, Kevin Dial, Arnold Ramlogan, Balkissoon Roodal, Beemal Ramnarace, Sheldon Roach, and Takoor Ramcharan. 20. The communication sent by the Inter-American Commission on March 19, 2009, in which the Commission confirmed that there are cases pending before it on behalf of Andrew Dottin and Kevin Dial (Case No. 12.145), Arnold Ramlogan (Case No 12.355), Balkissoon Roodal (Case No 12.342), Beemal Ramnarace (Case No 12.377), Sheldon Roach (Case No 12.346), and Takoor Ramcharan (Case No 12.400). Considering: 1. That Trinidad and Tobago was a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) from May 28, 1991, until May 26, 1999. Furthermore, the State recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on May 28, 1991. 2. That on May 26, 1998, the State notified the Organization of American States of its denunciation of the Convention, which, pursuant to Article 78(1) of said treaty, became effective on May 26, 1999. 3. That pursuant to Article 78(2) of the Convention, the denunciation does not have the effect of releasing the State from its obligations with respect to any act that may constitute a violation of those obligations and that has occurred prior to the effective date of denunciation. 4. That Article 63(2) of the Convention provides 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 a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 5. That according to Article 26(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: [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. 6. That, under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only precautionary in nature, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but are fundamentally protective, because they protect human rights inasmuch as they seek to