5 CONSIDERING: 1. That Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977 and, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, has accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons”, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. 3. that: That in relation to this issue, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure establishes [...] 2. With regard to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission”. [...] 6. The beneficiaries of provisional measures or urgent measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 4. That the Tribunal confirms that the violent events reported by the Commission in the instant matter are not being discussed in an adversarial proceeding before the Inter-American system (supra Having Seen clause six). 5. That his Court, in several occasions, has interpreted that the phrase “case not yet submitted to the Court" as contained in Article 63(2) in fine of the American Convention implies, at least, the possibility of bringing the issue, subject-matter of the provisional measures, to the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court. That in order for such minimum possibility to exist, the procedure established in Articles 44 and 46 to 48 of the American Convention should have been brought before the Commission.2 6. That, moreover, this Court has established that the provisional measures are not only precautionary but also protective. 7. That the Tribunal considers it is relevant to indicate that the precautionary nature of the provisional measures is connected to the framework of international adversarial cases. In such sense, these measures are intended to preserve those rights, which are at risk until the controversy is finally settled. Its purpose is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits and in this way, avoid the litigious rights being impaired, situation which may adversely affect the useful purpose 2 Matter of García Uribe et al. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 2, 2006, considering clauses three and four.