2 initiating, in this way, the procedural dispute (the substantial contentious case is previous and underlying to such) it is not possible to hold that the Tribunal exercises a contentious competence identical to the one that shows when the Commission brings the controversy before the Court. This difference allows identifying the kind of precautionary judicial authority I have already mentioned. 6. The foregoing does not modify the radical identity in the design of the measures adopted by the Court in the several cases that it hears: To protect the rights of the people, by means of the preservation of the legally protected interest at risk. The precautionary measures the Inter-American Commission orders have, in effect, the same design. 7. In the Order corresponding to the inmates of the Rodeo Prison, to which this Opinion refers, the Court tries to determine the scope of its ideas regarding the cautionary and protective nature of the provisional measures. When doing so, the Court shows the delimitation (projected towards the entity and the specific purposes of the measures) that is possible to establish between the jurisdiction it has when an issue is being processed before the Commission and when the merits of the issue are being considered by the Court, within an adversarial procedure. 8. The Tribunal deems that the “precautionary nature of the provisional measures is related to the framework of international adversarial cases” and to the preservation of such and the execution of the Judgment delivered by the Court (Considering clause seven). Instead, the “protective nature” of the measures implies “a true judicial guarantee of preventive nature, inasmuch as they protect human rights, to the extent that they are intended to avoid irreparable damage to people" (considering clause eight). 9. In general terms, I share that effort of conceptual precision that contributes to making progress in the awareness of international judicial protection of human rights. My own analysis of the criteria invoked in the aforesaid paragraph leads me to consider that this is more an issue of emphasis than an essential matter. In effect, I believe that, in any case, there is a protective (protection of human rights) and cautionary (preservation of the suit at law) purpose. 10. When measures are ordered in contentious cases, the precautionary purpose becomes certain (according to the commonly known characterization of such), but there can be doubts when dealing with measures ordered in cases that are still being tried by the Commission. Nonetheless, such cases have- in my opinion- a precautionary purpose and result: to protect the suit at law that eventually will be brought before the Court, as well as the effect of the final decision resulting from such case; and even to protect the proceedings initiated before the own Inter-American Commission that would face with additional complications, or become unsuccessful (since the practical point of view that deeply interests the private parties) if such violations were committed. 11. The Court has emphasized the need, absolutely inherent to the matter, of carefully analyzing the extreme seriousness and urgency of the risk hanging over the right, as well as the possibility of causing irreparable damage to people, grounds on which the adoption of measures are based on. In terms of the Convention, these are advisable in "limit" situations whenever those circumstances arise. Clearly, the decision of the Court can be provided in prima facie weighing -- due to lack of conclusive evidence, as frequently occurs-- and can and should "assess (the extreme seriousness