12 requirements of extreme seriousness and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met, the provisional measures become an actual jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature. 6. That Article 1(1) of the Convention enshrines the duty of the States Party to respect the rights and freedoms acknowledged in such treaty, and to guarantee the free and complete exercise of the same to all persons submitted to their jurisdiction. 7. That the case giving rise to the request for the instant provisional measures is not pending before the Court as to its merits, and that the adoption of such measures does not amount to a decision about the merits of the controversy existing between the petitioners and the State. Upon adopting provisional measures, the Court is merely exercising its powers pursuant to the Convention in cases of extreme urgency and seriousness that demand protective measures to prevent causing irreparable damage to persons. 8. That the Inter-American Commission requested this Court to issue an order to protect the lives and the physical integrity of those persons that have been deprived or their liberty that are detained in the Araraquara Penitentiary (supra Having Seen clause No. 1.) On some other occasions, the Court has ordered the protection of a plurality of persons that had not previously been identified, but who were identifiable and determinable and were facing an impending dangerous situation due to the fact they belonged to a group or community,1 such as the persons deprived of their liberty at a detention center.2 9. That the active participation of the State, of the Commission and of the representatives at the public hearing that has been held regarding the instant case constitutes an advance for the development of the implementation of the instant provisional measures. 10. That in the instant case, urgent protective measures have been ordered for the benefit of the persons that were detained in the Araraquara Penitentiary as well as for those persons that might be admitted to such penitentiary as prisoners or detainees (supra Having Seen clause No. 4.) At the public hearing held on September, 2006, the State informed that it had referred to other penitentiary centers those persons that had been previously detained in the Araraquara Penitentiary. Despite the aforesaid, the beneficiaries of the measures are identifiable and are those persons detained at the Araraquara Penitentiary for whose benefit the adoption of the protective measures was ordered on July 28, 2006, without regard to the fact that they have been referred to some other penitentiary, since the State is still responsible for their custody. 1 Cf., inter alia, Matter of Pueblo Indígena de Sarayaku. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004, Considering clause No. 9; Matter of Pueblo Indígena Kankuamo. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2004, Considering clause No. 9; and Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 6, 2003, Considering clause No. 9. 2 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures supra note 2, Considering clause No. 7; Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 30, 2005, Considering clause No. 6; and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2004, Considering clause No. 13; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002, Considering clause No. 6.