3 measures, of an increasingly greater use in the case-law of the Inter-American Court, lies precisely on its eminently preventive dimension. 10. Its constitutive elements of the "extreme gravity and urgency", and the prevention of "irreparable damage to persons" - present and persistent to date in the present matter (James and Others case) - transform the provisional measures of protection into a true jurisdictional guarantee of preventive character. The attention to such elements, and to the juridical nature of those measures of protection, leads me to dissent from the doctrinal trend which beholds in the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court at the request of the Commission measures of an exceptional order, to be restrictively interpreted by virtue of their innovating character. 11. Such doctrinal trend, static and conservative, shifts the attention from the very essence and the rationale of the provisional measures of protection, from its juridical nature, into considerations of a purely juridico-formal order, with an instinctive attachment to the travaux préparatoires of Article 63(2) of the American Convention. The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties (of 1969 and 1986) themselves see it fit to warn, in Article 32, that only when the interpretation of a treaty in accordance with the general rule of Article 31 (infra) leaves the meaning "ambiguous or obscure", or leads to a manifestly unreasonable result, would it be fit to resort to the use of supplementary means of interpretation, such as the recourse to the preparatory work of the treaty at issue. It so occurs that the travaux préparatoires themselves of Article 63(2) of the American Convention are obscure and very little clarifying (cf. OEA, Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Derechos Humanos - Actas y Documentos [07-22.11.1969], doc. OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, of 1978, pp. 361, 457 and 497), in no way justifying an unduly restrictive interpretation of the provisional measures of protection ordered by the InterAmerican Court. 12. In fact, the constitutive elements of the general rule of interpretation of treaties (formulated in Article 31(1) of the two Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, of 1969 and 1986), - namely, the good faith, the text, the context, and the object and purpose of the treaty, - are jointly set forth in a same formulation, precisely to indicate the unity of the process of interpretation. Underlying that general rule of interpretation is found the principle ut res magis valeat quam pereat, widely supported by the international case-law, and which corresponds to the so-called effet utile (sometimes referred to as principle of efectiveness), by virtue of which one is to secure to the conventional provisions their proper effects in the domestic law of the States Parties. 13. In the inter-State contentieux, the power of a tribunal like the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures of protection in a pending case aims at preserving the respective rights of the parties, avoiding an irreparable damage to the rights under litigation in a judicial process. This has been pointed out by the Hague Court, for example, in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case (United Kingdom versus Iceland, ICJ Reports [1972] p. 16, par. 21, and p. 34, par. 22), in the case of Hostages (U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff) in Tehran (United States versus Iran, ICJ Reports [1979] p. 19, par. 36), and, more recently, in the case of the Application of the Convention against Genocide (Bosnia Herzegovina versus Yugoslavia [Servia and Montenegro], ICJ Reports [1993] p. 19, par. 34, and p. 342, par. 35). Underlying this reasoning one finds the search for balance between the interests of the litigant parties (complainant and respondent States), as a reflection of the importance traditionally attributed to the role of reciprocity in international law in general.