4. Regarding this issue, Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”)5 , where pertinent, establishes that: 1. At any stage of 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. […] 3. In contentious cases before the Court, victims or alleged victims, or their representatives, may submit to it a request for provisional measures, which must be related to the subject matter of the case. 5. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not merely preventive, in that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather they are essentially protective, since they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provisional measures are applicable 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.4 6. These provisional measures were ordered by the Tribunal in the Order of August 30, 2011, at the request of the representatives. The Court found that the facts reported by the representatives revealed prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that justified the adoption of provisional measures to avoid irreparable damage to the life and personal integrity of Mario Suriel Núñez, who testified as a witness before this Tribunal at the public hearing held in the instant case. The alleged facts referred to the pursuit suffered by Mr. Suriel Núñez on August 7, 2011, that caused him to crash his car, the alleged surveillance observed by his neighbors, the anonymous telephone calls, and the consequent decision to abandon his residence. 7. Following the Court’s adoption of the measures, the State presented a report and the representatives and the Inter-American Commission forwarded their corresponding observations (supra Having Seen clauses 4, 5 and 6).7 According to the information provided, the measure of protection implemented by the State in favor of the beneficiary consisted in “provid[ing] him with the telephone numbers of the communication centers of [the National Police] and the […] Central Directorate, as well as the personal mobile telephone numbers and the vehicle pool of the Deputy Assistant Director against Organized Crime.”8 This was the only measure of those offered by the State that the beneficiary accepted to be implemented. The Court takes note of and values the efforts made by the State to communicate with the beneficiary and to allow him to participate in the implementation of these provisional measures. 5 The Court’s Rules of Procedure approved during its LXXXV Regular Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 4 See Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, Considering clause 4; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., Considering clause 4, and Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., Considering clause 5. 7 Additionally, the State presented its first bi-monthly report on April 19, 2012 (supra Having Seen clause 8), before learning about the request for the lifting of the measures, which had been presented a few days earlier (supra Having Seen clause 7 and infra Considering clause 8). 8 According to the beneficiary, when he met with officials of the National Police, he informed them that he “did not agree with the idea of accepting alleged measures of protection such as assigning me a bodyguard or anything similar,” but he did not “object to be given “a telephone number of a special contact, or a similar resource, for specific situations.” 3