-4- In 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. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. That, in the terms of Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, 1. At 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 highlights the obligation of State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. The State is thus required to adopt the necessary measures to preserve the life and integrity of those persons whose rights may be threatened. This duty becomes even more evident when it pertains to those undergoing proceedings before the supervisory bodies of the American Convention. 5. That the States party to the Convention must fulfill their conventional obligations in good faith, which is a basic principle of the law of international responsibility of States (pacta sunt servanda).1 They must also guarantee the effects of such provisions (effet utile).2 6. That the purpose of provisional measures in domestic legal systems (domestic procedural law) is, in general, to preserve the rights of the litigant parties, thereby ensuring that the execution of the eventual judgment on the merits will not be prejudiced by the litigants’ actions pendente lite. The purpose of provisional measures under international human rights law is more far-reaching: although essentially preventive in nature, they also effectively protect fundamental rights in that they seek to avoid irreparable harm to persons3. 7. That by virtue of the Court’s Orders between June 1994 and September 2001 (supra, paragraphs 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 under “Having Seen”), the State has an obligation to take the measures of protection necessary to preserve the life and integrity of the beneficiaries of the measures. 1 Cfr., inter alia, Matter of Adrián Meléndez Quijano et al.. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 12, 2007, sixth considering clause; Matter of The Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, seventh considering clause, and the Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Human Rights Court of February 2, 2007, fifth considering clause. 2 Cfr., inter alia, Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, paragraph 37; Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al), supra note 38, paragraph 87. See Also Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, paragraph 171, and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paragraph 205. Cfr. Matter of the Persons Imprisoned in the “Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira” Penitentiary. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Human Rights Court of September 30, 2006, fourth and fifth considering clauses; Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Human Rights Court of September 22, 2006, fourth and fifth considering clauses, and Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Human Rights Court of March 30, 2006, fourth and fifth considering clauses, 3