5 3. That, in the terms of Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: 1. 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. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 6. The beneficiaries of urgent measures or provisional measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. […] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That, in particular, as the Court has already stated, it is the State’s obligation to adopt measures of security to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction1 and this obligation becomes even more apparent in relation to those who are involved in proceedings before the supervisory organs of the American Convention.2 6. That, in general, under domestic legal systems (internal procedural law), the purpose of provisional measures is to protect the rights of the parties in dispute, ensuring that the judgment on merits is not prejudiced by their actions pendente lite. 7. That, under international human rights law, the purpose of urgent and provisional measures goes further because, in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they protect fundamental rights, since they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 8. That, in this case, the purpose of the measures that have been requested is to ensure that there is no obstacle to the possibility of complying with an eventual decision of the bodies of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights concerning the existence of a violation of Article 4 of the American Convention. 1 Cf. Case of Carlos Nieto et al.. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2004, fourth considering paragraph; the Matter of the Pueblo indígena de Sarayaku. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004, fourth considering paragraph; and the Matter of “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” Newspapers. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004, fourth considering paragraph. Cf. Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2004, sixth considering paragraph; the Case of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, fifth considering paragraph; the Case of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 2002, fifth considering paragraph; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002, tenth considering paragraph. 2