4 3. Regarding this matter, Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court sets forth 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. [w]ith respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] Subparagraph 4 of said Article 25 states that, [i]f the Court is not sitting, the President, in consultation with the Permanent Commission and, if possible, with the other judges, shall call upon the government concerned to adopt such urgent measures as may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of any provisional measures that may be ordered by the Court at its next session. 4. Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth the duty of the States party to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in that treaty and to ensure their free and full exercise by all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. The purpose of provisional measures, in the national legal systems (domestic procedural law) in general, is to protect the rights of the parties to a dispute, ensuring that the judgment on the merits does not suffer detriment due to actions by the parties pendente lite. 6. The purpose of urgent and provisional measures, in International Human Rights Law, goes further as, in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they effectively protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 7. The background information submitted by the Commission in its application (supra Having Seen 4 and 5) demonstrates prima facie the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency regarding the life, the right to humane treatment, and freedom of expression of Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía, and Pedro Nikken, employees of the broadcast station Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), for which reason this Presidency deems that the State must order adoption of such measures as may be necessary to protect said persons. 8. It is the responsibility of the State to adopt effective security measures to protect all persons under its jurisdiction, and this duty is even more evident with respect to those involved in proceedings before the protection bodies of the American Convention. Furthermore, this Court has ordered the State to “allow the applicants to participate in planning and implementation of the protection measures