consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes that: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage 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 to 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 measure requested […] 4. That the Court has pointed out that provisional measures are of a twofold nature: precautionary and protective.1 The precautionary nature of provisional measures is linked to the framework of international contentious cases. In this regard, the purpose and goal of such measures is to preserve those rights that are potentially at risk until the dispute is settled. Their purpose and goal is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits, thereby preventing an infringement of the rights at issue, a situation that might render the final decision ineffective or hinder its effective application. Thus, provisional measures enable the State concerned to comply with the final decision and, if applicable, to proceed with the reparations ordered. 2 As regards the protective nature of provisional measures, this Court has pointed out that these constitute a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature, because they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable harm to persons. 3 5. The Court recalls that for the purposes of granting the provisional measures requested, both in their protective and precautionary aspects, there must be a concurrence of the three requirements enshrined in Article 63.2 of the Convention, namely: i) “extreme gravity;” ii) “urgency,” and iii) the need to “avoid irreparable harm to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. 4 1 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (Newspaper “La Nación”). Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of September 7, 2001, Considering paragraph 4, and Case of de la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 29, 2012, Considering paragraph 5. 2 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 8, 2008, Considering paragraph 7 and Case of Eloísa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 5, 2011, Considering paragraph 2. 3 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (Newspaper “La Nación”), supra note 1, Considering paragraph 4 and Case of de la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering paragraph 5. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 6, 2009, Considering paragraph 14, and Case of de la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering paragraph 2. 10