3 11. The communication of the Secretariat dated October 25, 2010, granting the representatives a deadline of October 29, 2010, and the Commission a deadline of November 3, 2010, to submit their comments on the State report. The communication of the Commission dated November 3, 2010, asking for its deadline for the submission of the aforementioned comments to be extended until November 5, 2010. Communication of the Secretariat dated November 5, 2010, granting the deadline extension and repeating its request to the representatives for the submission of their comments. 12. The brief of the Commission dated November 5, 2010, in which it stated that "the State reported on some of the investigations into the various incidents that took place of the detriment of the Barrios family, including the recent death of Wilmer José Flores Barrios[. With regard to this incident,] the State reported that the investigation has been launched and certain steps have been ordered to be taken." Likewise, it indicated that the State has not given any response to the situation of vulnerability that continues to be faced by the beneficiaries of the provisional measures and that has contributed to the deaths of three of them. It expressed its deep concern over the limited information provided by the State. 13. The Communication of the Secretariat dated November 19, 2010, repeating its request to the representatives for the submission of their comments. As of the date of this Order, those comments have not yet been received. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") since August 9, 1977, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. The Tribunal has indicated that provisional measures are not solely precautionary, in the sense that they preserve the legal situation. Rather they are fundamentally tutelary, in that they protect human rights by seeking to prevent irreparable damage to persons.1In that sense, the purpose of these measures is to preserve the rights potentially at risk for as long as the dispute remains unresolved. Their goal is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits and to thereby avoid infringement of the rights under consideration, which could render innocuous or have an effect on the effet utile of the final decision. Provisional measures, therefore, allow for the State in question to comply with the final decision, and, if applicable, to implement the reparations ordered2 1 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación.” Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, Considering 4; Matter of Natera Balboa. Request for Provisional Measures presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 1, 2010, Considering Clause 7, and Case of de la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and Request for Adoption of Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, Considering 74. 2 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Request for Provisional Measures presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, Considering 7; Matter of Four Ngöbe Indigenous Communities and their Members. Reparations requested by the Commission regarding Panama. Order of the Court of November 28, 2010, Considering 3, and Case of the Caracazo (COFAVIC Matter). Request for Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, Considering 4.