12 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]n 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 Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth the general obligation of the State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms therein enshrined and to ensure to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Court the free and full exercise of such rights and freedoms. 4. That, the provisional measures have an exceptional nature, in response to the need for protection and, once ordered, should remain in effect so long as the Court considers that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the avoidance of irreparable damage to the rights of persons protected by them continue to exist. 1 5. That according to the provision established in Article 63(2) of the Convention, provisional measures ordered by the Court are binding on the State in conformity to a basic principle of the law of international responsibility of the States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with international treaty obligations in good faith. 2 6. That in light of the State’s responsibility to adopt protective measures to safeguard the persons under its jurisdiction, the Court deems that such obligation is even more evident regarding persons held in a detention center, in which case the State is the guarantor of the rights of the persons under its custody and given that the penitentiary authorities exercise total control over them.3 7. That one of the unavoidable obligations that the State has to assume in its capacity as guarantor, with the purpose of protecting and securing the right to life and humane treatment of the persons that have been deprived of their liberty, is that of providing such persons with the minimum decent conditions while they remain in the detention centers 4. Additionally, the protection of life of all people deprived of their liberty requires that the 1 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, Considering Clause three. Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering Clause seven; Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica") Provisional Measures Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering Clause seven. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998; Considering Clause six; Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures, supra note 1; Considering clause eight; Case of Colotenango. Provisional Measures Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering Clause five. 3 Cf. Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of June 18, 2002; Considering Clause eight. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica") Provisional Measures, supra note 1, Considering Clause ten and Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM. Provisional Measures Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering Clause six. 4 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al v.Perú. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C Nº 20, para. 60; Matter of Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of August 22, 2007; Considering Clause sixteen and . Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica") Provisional Measures, supra note 1; Considering clause eleven.