3 Velásquez. The Court should also observe that the Venezuelan State’s brief does not mention Liliana Velásquez, even though she was also protected by the said measures. The Commission also indicated that “the State has not presented any information on the investigations that it was obliged to conduct,” so that “the State is contributing to ensure impunity in this case.” Consequently, the Commission concluded that the State “has flagrantly failed to comply with the provisional measures granted in favor of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez”. CONSIDERING: 1. That the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]n cases extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional matters as it deems pertinent matters it has under consideration and, with respect to a case not yet submitted it, it may act at the request of the Commission.” of to in to 3. That, according to Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: 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. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention indicates the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That, in general, under domestic legal systems (internal procedural law), the purpose of provisional measure is to protect the rights of the parties in dispute, ensuring that the judgment on merits is not prejudiced by their actions pendente lite. 6. That, under international human rights law, the purpose of urgent and provisional measures goes further, because, in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 7. That, after examining the documents in the file on these measures, the Court considers it necessary to reiterate to Venezuela that it is the State’s responsibility to adopt safety measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction and that this obligation is even clearer with regard to those who are involved in proceedings before the organs of protection of the American Convention.