6 5. That, under international human rights law, the purpose of provisional measures is not merely precautionary, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but they are essentially protective because they protect human rights inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applicable as long as the basic standards of extreme gravity and urgency, and of avoiding irreparable damage to persons, are met. In such manner, provisional measures become a true judicial court remedy of a preventive nature2. 6. That the provision established in Article 63.2(2) of the Convention renders the adoption by the State of the provisional measures this Tribunal may order mandatory for, under the basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, upheld by international case law, States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda)3. * * * 7. That the instant request for provisional measures is not related to a case pending before the Curt, but it originated instead in a request for precautionary measures submitted to the Inter-American Commission along with an individual petition on January 12, 2009. According to what the Commission has reported, such petition is at the initial study stage under number 28-09. 8. That from the information provided by the Commission, it appears that the mentioned persons would have suffered various acts of harassment, trespassing on their private home and the subtraction of personal documents from there, including evidence of what had happened to A. J. As a result of this last circumstance, the family decided to leave their house and move to another town. Likewise, this Court perceives the special seriousness of what the Commission communicated about the alleged deprivation of personal liberty and of life to the detriment of B. J., father to A. J., allegedly by a group of armed men (supra Having Seen Clause Number 2. c). Moreover, after the Inter-American Commission adopted precautionary measures, there would have been personal and telephone threats and arson at the J. family house, among other acts (supra Having Seen Clause Number 2. d), creating a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and of possible irreparable damage to the rights to life and to personal integrity of the persons mentioned in the request by the Commission. All such facts would be motivated by the complaint such persons had made on account of the rape A.J. would have suffered, allegedly by a policeman. Considering Clause Number Four; and Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated July 6, 2009, Considering Clause Number Twenty-Four. 2 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated September 07, 2001 , Considering Clause Number Four; Matter of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 1, Considering Clause Number Five; and Case of Gomes Lund et al., (Guerrilha do Araguaia). Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated July 15, 2009, Considering Clause Number Four. 3 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights dated June 14, 1998, Considering Clause Number Six; Case of 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated July 08, 2009, Considering Clause Number Four; and Matter of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 1, Considering Clause Number Six.