2 CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, on June 21, 1985. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes 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.” 3. According to Article 63(2) of the Convention, the provisional measures ordered by the Court are binding on the State, because a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, indicates that States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 4. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only preventive in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but they are also essentially protective because they protect human rights, insofar as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provisional measures are applicable provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met. In this way, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.2 5. These provisional measures relate to the alleged murder of Josué Giraldo Cardona, President of the Civic Human Rights Committee of Meta (hereinafter also “Civic Committee of Meta” or “Civic Committee”) in October 1996, despite the existence of precautionary measures granted in favor of the members of the said organization since November 1995. The representatives indicated that the processing of the said petition had commenced in 1996 and that a request had been made to combine it “with the processing of the case of the Patriotic Union (Unión Patriótica).” In addition, in a communication of April 22, 2010, the Inter-American Commission informed the Court that the case of Josué Giraldo Cardona was at the admissibility and merits stage and that it had “decided not to joinder it to the case [...] of the Patriotic Union.” Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that, in accordance with its jurisdiction within the framework of provisional measures, it can only consider the merits of arguments relating strictly and directly to the extreme gravity and urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Hence, in order to decide whether to maintain the provisional measures in force, 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 extremely grave and urgent, warrant keeping them in 1 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of María Lourdes Afiuni. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the President of the Court of December 10, 2010, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luis Galdámez Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the President of the Court of December 22, 2010, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of María Lourdes Afiuni, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luis Galdámez Álvarez et al., supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph.