3. Regarding the terms of Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: 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, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to a matter not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. […] 5. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. […] 4. Pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention, the State’s adoption of the provisional measures ordered by the Court is mandatory, given that the basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, has indicated that States must comply with their obligations under the Convention in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 5. According to the International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not only precautionary in the sense that they preserve legal status, but they are also mainly protective since they protect human rights, insofar as they avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provisional measures are adopted provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met. In this sense, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 6. The present request for provisional measures is not related to a case brought before the Court’s attention, but the request was based on information presented before the Inter-American Commission by the Venezuelan Prisons Observatory, represented by Mr. Humberto Prado. The Court has considered it is necessary to clarify that, in view of the protective nature of the provisional measures, it may order such measures even when there is not exactly an adversarial case in the inter-American system, in situations that, prima facie, may result in a serious and urgent impairment of human rights. Therefore, the Court must make an assessment of the proposed problem, the effectiveness of the State’s measures regarding the described situation and the degree of vulnerability in which those people requesting the measures would be if such measures were not adopted. In order to achieve this goal it is vital that the Inter-American Commission submits sufficient grounds to encompass the aforementioned criteria and that the State fails to show, in a clear and satisfactory way, the effectiveness of the 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 26, 2012, second considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional Measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, fourth considering paragraph. 6