7 […] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of the State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms therein enshrined and to ensure the full and free exercise of those rights and freedoms to every person subject to jurisdiction; such obligations are binding are binding not only o States but also on third parties.3 5. That according to the International Human Rights Law, the provisional measures are not only precautionary in the sense that they preserve a legal situation, but they are also mainly protective since they protect human rights, insofar as they avoid irreparable damage to people. Provisional measures are adopted provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met. In this sense, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.4 6. 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 (pacta sunt servanda).5 * * * 7. That the instant request for provisional measures does not derive from a case subjected to the consideration of the Court; otherwise, these measures were requested in a context of a petition pending before the Inter-American Commission. In fact, in said request, the Commission informed that the beneficiaries of the precautionary measures are “directly or indirectly related to the case of Inés Fernández Ortega (Case 12.580)", according to which, on October 30, 2008 the Commission adopted the Report on Merits in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention. 8. That from the information forwarded by the Commission it spring that, in spite of the precautionary measures ordered from the year 2005 onwards (supra Having Seen clause 2), there would be “alleged threats and acts of violence” leading to a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and of possible irreparability of damage to the right of life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries. In addition, according to the request for provisional measures 3 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures Regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering Clause three; Case of Kawas Fernández. Provisional Measures Regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2008; Considering Clause four; and Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of January 26, 2009; Considering clause twenty-two. 4 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001; Considering Clause four; Case of López Álvarez. Provisional Measures Regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, Considering Clause three; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering Clause forty-five. 5 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998; Considering Clause six; Case of Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, considering clause three; and Matter of "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia" Newspapers. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2008, Considering Clause two.