3 relevant, it will be up to the Tribunal to weigh the pertinence of continuing with the protective measures ordered.1 3. On this subject, Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court2 (hereinafter "the Rules of Procedure") establishes in its pertinent part 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 appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 7. The monitoring of urgent or provisional measures ordered shall be carried out through the submission of reports by the State and the filing of observations to those reports by the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives. The Commission shall submit observations to the State’s reports and to the observations of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives. […] 4. The provision established in Article 63(2) of the Convention make the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal obligatory for the State, as the basic principles of international law, based on international case law, have indicated that States must comply with their obligations under the Convention in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).3 5. In International Human Rights Law, 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. The measures are applicable as long as they meet the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to persons. In this way, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventative nature.4. 6. Based on its jurisdiction, in the context of provisional measures the Court can only consider those arguments that are directly related to extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damages to persons. Thus in order to decide whether the provisional measures should remain in force, the Tribunal must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or if, rather, new circumstances that are equally grave and urgent merit that the measures be 1 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering 14; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 4, 2010, Considering 2, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of August 26, 2010, Considering 2 2 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court in the LXXXV Regular Session held from November 16-28, 2009. 3 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of July 14, 1998, Considering 6, and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of September 2, 2010, Considering 3, and and Matter of Centro Penitenciario de Aragua "Cárcel de Tocorón.” Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 1, 2010, Considering 4. 4 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación.” Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, Considering 4; Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, supra footnote 3, Considering 6, and Matter of Centro Penitenciario de Aragua "Cárcel de Tocorón,” supra footnote 3, Considering 6.