8 1. That the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977 and that pursuant to Article 62 thereof, it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that, “[a]t 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 in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission,” 3. That Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, “[a]t 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.” 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention enshrines the duty of the States Parties to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms protected by such treaty. 5. That under Human Rights International Law urgent and provisional measures serve a further purpose, which is to protect fundamental human rights, thus preventing irreparable damage to persons. 6. That provisional measures are exceptional, are ordered in response to the need of protection, and, once ordered, must be maintained as long as the Court deems that the prerequisites of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to prevent irreparable damage to the rights of the persons thereby protected persist. 7. That pursuant to the Order of the Inter-American Court of July 9, 2004 (supra Having Seen clause 1) the State must, inter alia, adopt measures aimed at protecting the life, physical integrity, and personal freedom of Carlos Nieto-Palma, as well as the lives and physical integrity of his next of kin; conduct an investigation into the facts which gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures in order to identify those responsible and punish them; allow the beneficiaries or the representatives thereof to take part in the planning and implementation of the protection measures, as well as to keep them informed of the progress regarding the compliance with the measures ordered by the Court, and submit to the Court such reports as may be required. 8. That on July 3, 2006 the State requested that the provisional measures ordered in behalf of Carlos Nieto-Palma be discontinued due to the fact that “to date the State has fully complied with [such measures and as], furthermore, the events and circumstances which gave rise to the adoption of such measures […] have already ceased,” and that on August 23, 2006 it requested that the provisional measures be discontinued “as there is no evidence of irreparable damage or an imminent danger against [Carlos Nieto-Palma and his next of kin]” (supra Having Seen clause 3(j) and 12(d)). Furthermore, it pointed out that the Juzgado Cuadragésimo Octavo de Primera Instancia en Funciones de Control del Circuito Judicial Penal (Forty-Eighth First Instance Criminal Judicial Circuit Controlling Court) of Caracas Metropolitan Area has not as yet rendered judgment regarding the request so that the proceedings be dismissed;”