14 rights defenders,” and it “has emphatically condemned any events tending to harm in any way those who engage in this type of work,” and e) It reiterated its position that “in the present matter the requirements for ordering provisional measures have not been met, considering that the precautionary measures requested by the Inter-American Commission [...] are being fulfilled by the State, which has responded effectively to the situation of risk that the members of the ICJP face.” CONSIDERING: 1. Colombia has been a party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the same, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention states that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable harm 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.” 3. In the terms of Article 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable harm to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted before it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 5. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the matter requested. […] 4. The Court has indicated that provisional measures are of a dual nature: one precautionary and the other protective.6 The precautionary nature of provisional measures is linked to the framework of international disputes. In that sense, these measures seek to preserve rights at risk until such time as the controversy is resolved. The object and goal of the measures are to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits, and thus to avoid disturbing the specific rights at issue, creating a situation that could render moot or otherwise distort the applicability of the final decision. Provisional measures permit this in order that the 6 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper). Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001. Considering clause four; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 15, 2010, Considering clause six; and, Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering clause four.