5 3. That Article 1(1) of the American Convention sets forth the duty that States Parties have to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. The State, therefore, is duty-bound to adopt the measures necessary to preserve the life and personal safety of those persons whose rights may be threatened. This obligation becomes all the more obvious in the case of persons associated with cases filed with the bodies charged with ensuring observance of the American Convention. 4. That, under Article 25(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”): At 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. 5. That the request for provisional measures is in connection with the Bámaca Velásquez case currently before the Court. 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must fulfill their conventional obligations in good faith, which is a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of States (pacta sunt servanda).1 They must also guarantee the effects of such provisions (effet utile).2 7. That the Court has repeatedly maintained that the duty to investigate must be carried out seriously, and not as a mere formality destined to be unfruitful.3 8. That under the Court’s August 29, 1998 Order, the State is obligated to adopt the measures necessary to protect the life and safety of the persons on behalf of whom the Court ordered provisional measures. The Commission, for its part, is required to present its observations on the measures that the State undertakes, within six weeks of the date of receipt of the corresponding report. 9. That the State’s reports and the Commission’s observations reveal a number of inconsistencies and differences of opinion concerning the provisional measures adopted and their effectiveness, leaving it to the Court to sort them out and decide whether or not the provisional measures it ordered were carried out. 10. That Guatemala has a duty to investigate the facts prompting this request for provisional measures in order to identify those responsible and punish them 1 Cf., inter alia, Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Compliance with Judgment, Order of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, consideranda 4; Loayza Tamayo Case. Compliance with Judgment, Order of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 60, consideranda 7; and the James, Briggs, Noel, García and Bethel.Cases, Provisional Measures. Order of June 14, 1998. Series E No. 2, consideranda 6. 2 Cf., inter alia, Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C. No. 54, para. 37; and Constitutional Court Case, Competence, Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C. No. 55, para. 36. 3 Cf., inter alia, Durand and Ugarte.Case, Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 123; Villagrán Morales et al. Case,. Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, para. 226; Godínez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 188; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177.