13 willingness and the policies aimed at dealing with the paramilitary groups which operate in the region. The reopening of such Committee does not depend on Ms. Rey’s wishes. d) As to the participation of the petitioners in the planning and implementation of the measures, since January 27, 2005 no coordination and negotiations meetings have been held between the beneficiaries and the State. It is of the utmost importance to hold coordination and negotiations meetings where differences can be reconciled and resolved through a direct and genuine discussion between the parties, for the sake of a better implementation of the protection measures. CONSIDERING: 1. That Colombia has been a State Member to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and that pursuant to Article 62 thereof, it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that, “[a]t 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. Regarding to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. That pursuant to Article 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules”), 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 [; and] […] 6. [t]he beneficiaries of the provisional or urgent measures ordered by the President may submit their observations on the report of the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights must submit its observations on the report of the State and on the observations filed by the beneficiaries of the measures or the representatives thereof. 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention enshrines the duty of the States Parties to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms protected by such treaty. 5. That under Human Rights International Law provisional measures are not only precautionary in that they preserve a legal status, but essentially protective for they protect Human Rights, as they seek to prevent irreparable damage to persons. These measures are applied as long as the prerequisites of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met. Thus, provisional measures become a true preventive1 jurisdictional guarantee. 1 Cf. Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. In favor of the members of the Equipo de estudios comunitarios y acción psicosocial (Community Studies and Psychological Action Team) (ECAP). Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 20, 2006, Considering clause No. 6; Case of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira" Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 30, 2006, Considering clause No. 5; and Matter of Gloria Giralt de García-