4 7. That, in general, under domestic legal systems (internal procedural law), the purpose of provisional measures is to protect the right of the parties to the dispute, ensuring that the judgment on merits is not prejudiced by their actions pendente lite. 8. 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, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 9. That the adoption of provisional measures does not imply a decision on the merits of the dispute in the instant case.4 By adopting provisional measures, the Court is merely ensuring that it can faithfully exercise its mandate under the Convention in cases of extreme gravity and urgency that require measures of protection to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 10. That, in other cases, the Court has ordered provisional measures to protect witnesses who have made statements before it.5 11. That the situation (alleged harassment and persecution) described by the witnesses in this case, Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe, Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri, Miguel Ángel Gómez Paquiyauri and Jacinta Peralta Allccarima (supra fourth and sixth having seen paragraphs), proves prima facie, the possible existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, and makes it necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the right to life and personal safety of the members of the Gómez Paquiyauri family: Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe, Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez; Marcelina Haydée, Ricardo Emilio, Carlos Pedro, Lucy Rosa and Miguel Ángel, the latter all Gómez Paquiyauri; Jacinta Peralta Allccarima, and the minor, Nora Emely Gómez Peralta. 12. That Ricardo Emilio and Carlos Pedro Gómez Paquiyauri are confined in Peruvian prisons, according to the statement made by Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe during the public hearing (supra fourth having seen paragraph). 13. That, given the State’s responsibility to adopt safety measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction, the Court deems that this obligation is even plainer in the case of persons confined in a State detention center, in which case the State is guarantor of the rights of the persons in its custody.6 4 Cf., inter alia, Case of Lysias Fleury, Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of June 7, 2004, tenth considering paragraph; Case of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curbaradó, Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of March 6, 2003, twelfth considering paragraph; and Case of Liliana Ortega et al., Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002, sixth considering paragraph. 5 Cf., inter alia, Case of Bámaca Velásquez, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2003, fifth, and eleventh to thirteenth considering paragraphs; Case of Helen Mack Chang et al., Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 21, 2003, eighth considering paragraph; Case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000, thirteenth considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Case of The Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, sixth considering paragraph; Case of The Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 2002, sixth considering