2 nature of the harm persist, which would justify maintaining these provisional measures in force. In particular, in its notes of May 9 and June 7 and 15, 2011, the Secretariat asked the representatives to submit their observations on the State’s request to lift the provisional measures. However, the representatives did not submit their observations. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since March 24, 1981, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that “[i]n 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. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. The provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention confer a compulsory nature on the State’s adoption of the provisional measures ordered by the Court, given that a basic principle of international law on State responsibility, supported by international case law, indicates that the States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 4. In the Inter-American Court’s Order of July 6, 2009 (supra first having seen paragraph), based on the willingness shown by the State, the Court saw fit to require the State to submit a report within a set time frame in which it: (a) identified and established differences in the degree of danger to Mrs. Pérez Torres and any family members she might indicate; (b) evaluated carefully the existence, characteristics, and origin or source of the danger in each individual situation, and (c) defined specific, adequate and sufficient measures of protection to avoid this danger, if it existed, from materializing. To this end, the Court ruled that the beneficiary and her family members should collaborate fully with the State and facilitate the implementation of the report a) Regarding the information and observations submitted by the parties 5. Initially the State indicated that “the relevant Mexican government institutions ha[d] called a working meeting with t[he beneficiaries] and their representatives in order to discuss implementation of measures that would safeguard the live and right to physical integrity of the interested parties, and allow them to participate in the process of drafting the State’s response to the Court.” However, “owing to [alleged] problems relating to the health and scheduling conflicts of the people who would accompany them, the representatives requested that the meeting [be rescheduled].” Subsequently, the State reported that a meeting had taken place on September 4, 2009, without the participation of Mrs. Pérez Torres, and at which: 1 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; Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 7, 2011, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 7, 2011, fourth considering paragraph.