4. This opinion is divided into four parts: it begins with a brief analysis of the competencies of the European Human Rights Court in relation to provisional measures; followed by an analysis of the competencies of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in relation to provisional measures; thirdly, the specific area of the Tribunal's competence to order provisional measures during the monitoring of compliance with judgments is discussed; and, finally, the importance of provisional measures during the monitoring phase is emphasized. I. The European Court of Human Rights and its competence to order provisional measures. 5. The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "European Court" or "European Tribunal") has argued that the object and purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights1 (hereinafter "European Convention") is the protection of persons, and to do so its safeguards must be practical and effective, as part of the system of individual applications.2 Similarly, it stated that the European Convention is a living instrument, which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions.3 Also, it is worth noting that the European Court has stated that the interpretation of a provision of the European Convention should be the that which is most appropriate for the purposes of achieving the object of the treaty, not that which would restrict to the greatest possible degree the obligations undertaken by the Parties.4 6. Unlike the inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights (hereinafter "inter-American System"), the European Convention contains no provision that expressly authorizes the European Court to order provisional measures. Thus, for a long time, the European Court abstained from ordering such measures on the understanding that the treaty contained no provision that empowered the designated bodies to request the implementation of provisional measures.5 However, subsequently, the European Court incorporated a provision into its Rules of Procedure pursuant to which it can order provisional measures. Indeed, Article 39(1) of its current Rules of Procedure stipulates that: "[T]he Chamber or, where appropriate, its President may, at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings before it […]."6 7. Although the European Court previously considered that the provisional measures it ordered were not legally enforceable since they were not explicitly referred to in the European Convention, from 2005 onwards, the European Court has maintained that a State is obliged to comply with such measures and to avoid any act or omission that undermines the authority and effectiveness of the final ruling. It also set forth that the 1 Agreement to Protected Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 2 Mamatkulov and Askarov. v. Turkey. Judgment of February 4, 2005, para. 101. 3 Mamatkulov and Askarov. v. Turkey, supra note 2, para. 121. 4 Wemhoff v. Germany. Judgment of June 27, 1968, para. 8. 5 . Cruz Varas v. Sweden. Judgment of 20 European Court. th March 1991, para. 102. It refers to the Commission and the 6 “The Chamber or, where appropriate, its President may, at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings before it […].” 2