3 [...] 9. The June 7, 2003 Order of the Court, in which it decided: 1. To ratify in its entirety the March 18, 2003 Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. 2. To find that the State has not effectively implemented urgent measures ordered by the President of the Inter-American Court in his March 18, 2003 Order. 3. To order the State to adopt, forthwith, such measures as m[ight] be necessary to protect the life and the right to humane treatment of Lysias Fleury. 4. To order the State to investigate the facts that gave rise to adoption of the[..] provisional measures, with the aim of identifying those responsible and punishing them as appropriate. 5. To order the State to allow the beneficiary of the[...] measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, to inform him of progress regarding implementation of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 6. To order the State to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every 30 days, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations on said reports by the State within two weeks of when it receive[d] notice of them. 10. The September 10, 2003 letter by the Secretariat, under instructions by the Court, in which it reminded the State of its obligation to submit monthly information on the provisional measures that it must adopt to protect Mr. Fleury’s right to life and to humane treatment. CONSIDERING: 1. The State ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or the “American Convention”) on September 27, 1977 and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, it accepted contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 20, 1998. 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. Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes that, “[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.” 4. Article 1(1) of the Convention enshrines the duty of the States Party to respect the rights and liberties recognized in that treaty and to ensure their free and full exercise by all persons under their jurisdiction. 5. The aim of provisional measures, in national legal systems (domestic procedural law) in general, is to protect the rights of the parties to a dispute,