14 measures as it deems pertinent, and in cases not yet submitted to its consideration, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. That, in the terms of Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: 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 such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That, in general, the purpose of provisional measures in domestic legal systems (internal procedural law) is to protect the rights of the parties in dispute, ensuring that the judgment on merits is not prejudiced by their actions pendente lite. 6. That the purpose of urgent and provisional measures in international human rights law goes further because, in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 7. That, after examining the documents in the file on the present measures, the Court deems it necessary to reiterate to Venezuela that it is the State’s responsibility to adopt safety measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction and that this obligation is even plainer with regard to those persons who are involved in proceedings before the organs of protection of the American Convention. 8. That, when ordering the State of Venezuela to adopt provisional measures in favor of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe, the Court also ordered it to provide information on the implementation of these measures (supra first and twentieth having seen paragraphs). It had ruled similarly when it adopted the expansion of measures in favor of Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía and Pedro Nikken (supra thirty-third having seen paragraph). 9. That, from a detailed examination of the information in the file on provisional measures, the Court has verified that Venezuela has submitted four reports. However, the information provided does not reflect effective implementation of the measures requested by the Court with regard to protection of the lives and safety of the beneficiaries, participation of the petitioners in the coordination and planning of the means of protection, investigation of the facts that gave rise to the measures, and submission to the Court of reports by the State every two months. Moreover, the time limit for presenting the pending reports on the provisional measures expired on September 11, 2003, on the urgent measures of expansion on October 15, 2003, and on the expanded provisional measures on November 28, 2003, and these reports have not been received.