6 motorbike for a meeting, near Tres Cruces, just before reaching the town of Concul, three men wearing balaclavas and backpacks, two of which dressed in military clothing, tried unsuccessfully to capture him with a rope. Afterwards, they unleashed a trained German Shepherd dog, which jumped up to him, but he managed to dodge it. Mr. Osorio Ixpatá manager to escape and headed to the road to Chol. Afterwards, Mr. Osorio Ixtapá telephoned Nieves Gómez, who called the Rabinal police, where an officer told her that Chol belong to another jurisdiction, and so she should call the police station of that precinct. In Chol, a patrol was waiting for Mr. Osorio Ixtapá. They took him to the road running from Chol to Rabinal, and told him he could walk on his own from there on, as the road was safe, so Mr. Osorio-Ixtapá was forced to walk back to Rabinal without any protection. CONSIDERING: 1. That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since May 25, 1978, and it acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 9, 1987; 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that, in “cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters not yet submitted to it, adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent at the Commission’s request. 3. In this regard, Article 25 of the Rules provides that: 1. [...] 6. At any stage of the proceeding 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 whatever provisional measures it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 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 this request for provisional measures has been directly filed by the victims' representatives and next of kin in a case that is currently proceeding before the Court and is at the compliance supervision stage, so the request complies with the provisions in Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. 5. That the purpose of the provisional measures in national (domestic procedural) legal systems generally is to protect the rights of contending parties, ensuring that the execution of judgments on the merits and reparations is not hindered or impeded by their conduct. 6. That under the International Law of Human Rights, provisional measures have not only a preventive purpose, to the extent that they preserve a given legal situation, but also and fundamentally a protective purpose, inasmuch as they are intended to protect human rights, preventing individuals from suffering irreparable harm. Provided that the requisite conditions of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of