6 irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 7. That provisional measures are exceptional in nature; they are ordered based on the need for protection and, once ordered, must be maintained, provided the basic requirements described above subsist.4 8. That, in the Judgment of August 31, 2001, the Court ordered the State to delimit, demarcate and title the land corresponding to the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community and, until this delimitation, demarcation and titling had been completed, to abstain from carrying out acts that could lead the State’s agents, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of the property located in the geographical area where the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community live and conduct their activities. 9. That, in the Order of September 6, 2002, the Court decided that it was necessary to grant provisional measures in order to protect the use and enjoyment of the ownership of the lands belonging to the members of the Awas Tigni Community and the natural resources within these lands in order to avoid immediate and irreparable damage resulting from the activities carried out by the exploitation of the natural resources on this territory by third parties outside the Community (supra second having seen paragraph). 10. That, now that more than five years have elapsed since the adoption of the provisional measures, the Court has assessed the different State reports and the observations of the representatives and the Commission concerning the measures adopted to protect the ownership of the ancestral lands of the members of the Awas Tigni Community, and observes that the information provided is closely related to compliance with the judgment of August 31, 2001 (supra third, fourth and fifth having seen paragraphs). 11. That, based on the above, in the instant case the Court deems it pertinent to associate the examination and assessment of the information provided on the measures adopted to protect the ownership of the ancestral lands of the members of the Awas Tigni Community with monitoring compliance with the judgment, so that it is unnecessary to maintain in force the provisional measures that were ordered (supra second having seen paragraph). 12. That, since the adoption of the Judgment of August 31, 2001, the Court has been monitoring compliance with it, pursuant to the provisions of the Convention regulating its competence in this regard (supra first and fifth considering paragraphs). 3 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 6, 2001, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Colotenango regarding Guatemala. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, fifth considering paragraph; Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) with regard to Venezuela. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, fourth considering paragraph Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Provisional measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, third considering paragraph; Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2007, fourth considering paragraph; and Matter of the Monagas Detention Center ("La Pica"). Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, seventh considering paragraph. 4