3 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters it has under consideration. 3. That, in the words of Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”):1 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. […]. 3. In contentious cases already submitted to the Court, the victims or the alleged victims, their next of kin or their duly accredited representatives, may present a request for provisional measures directly to the Court. […] 6. The beneficiaries of provisional measures, or urgent measures decided by the President, may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 4. That according to these provisions, it is evident that the Court may act on its own motion in cases of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to persons.2 5. That Article 1(1) of the Convention indicates that States Parties have the obligation to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 6. That, in particular, as this Court has stated, “it is the responsibility of the State to adopt safety measures to protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction and this obligation is even plainer with regard to those who are involved in proceedings before the supervisory organs of the American Convention.”3 1 This Order is issued in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at is forty-ninth regular session in an Order of November 24, 2000, which entered into force on June 1, 2001, and according to the partial reform adopted by the Court during its sixty-first regular session in an Order of November 25, 2003, which entered into force on January 1, 2004. 2 Cf., inter alia, Case of Helen Mack Chang et al.. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 21, 2003, fourth considering paragraph; Case of Paniagua Morales et al., Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 29, 2001, fourth considering paragraph; and Case of Loayza Tamayo, Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 13, 2000, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Cf., Case of The Urso Branco Prison case, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 22, 2004, fifth considering paragraph; The Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 2002, fifth considering paragraph; and Case of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002, fifth considering paragraph.