8 measures is connected to the framework of international adversarial cases. In such sense, these measures are intended to preserve those rights, which are at risk until the controversy is finally settled. Its purpose is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits and in this way, avoid the litigious rights being impaired, situation that may adversely affect the useful purpose of the final decision. The provisional measures make it possible for the State in question, in this sense, to comply with the final decision and, if applicable, to go ahead with the reparations so ordered.3 24. That as to the protective nature of the provisional measures, this Court has pointed out that, providing the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency as well as avoidance of irreparable damage of people are met, provisional measures are transformed in a true judicial guarantee of precautionary nature, since they protect human rights inasmuch as they are intended to avoid irreparable damage to persons.4 25. That when provisional measures are the matter, the Court must consider only and strictly those arguments directly related to the extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. All other fact or argument may only be considered and determined by the Court when it is disposing of a contentious case on the merits5. 26. That in the year 2004 the Court found that a situation of extreme gravity had been created by the aggression against the “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia,” newspapers, relating to sizable attacks and evident dangerousness, such as bombing “Así es la Noticia” and carrying out a severe attack on the “El Nacional” facilities (supra Considering Clause 4). 27. That although on October 17 2004 the President of the Republic made comments against the newspaper “El Nacional” and Mr. Miguel Enrique Otero (supra Considering Clause 17), there is no information regarding similar comments that occurred after this date against the newspaper “El Nacional” specifically or any of its workers. In the same way, although there is information regarding an alleged “campaign to dishonor” in the year 2005 (supra Considering Clause 17), there is no information after this that indicates a similar context of hostility regarding the beneficiaries of the measures directly. Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, considering clause number four; Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008, considering clause number 4, and Matter Carlos Nieto Palma and others. Provisional Measures Regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 5, 2008, considering clause number four. 3 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, considering clause number 7. 4 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 4, considering clause number eight. 5 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. August 20, 1998 Order by the Court, considering clause number Six; Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 4, considering clause number ten, and Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, supra note 2, considering clause number five.