3. That, in the terms of Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: 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 indicates the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in this instrument and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That this Court has considered the first report presented by the State on November 15, 2001, and also its arguments at the public hearing in the instant case held on November 26, 2001, in which it did not object to the complaint relating to the facts described by the Commission, which led the President to adopt urgent measures, and stated its willingness to implement such measures. 6. That it has also taken into consideration the arguments that the InterAmerican Commission submitted in its brief of November 21, 2001, and presented during the public hearing, when it requested that the provisional measures should be expanded to include the parents and twelve siblings of Digna Ochoa y Plácido. 7. That the background information presented by the Commission in its request and in subsequent documents and the arguments made during the public hearing confirm the existence of a situation of urgent and grave danger for the lives and safety of the members of the PRODH Center and the lawyers, Pilar Noriega García, Bárbara Zamora López and Leonel Rivero Rodríguez, and that there have been threats against the rights to life and personal safety of Eusebio Ochoa López and Irene Alicia Plácido Evangelista, parents of Digna Ochoa y Plácido, and her siblings, Carmen, Jesús, Luz María, Eusebio, Guadalupe, Ismael, Elia, Estela, Roberto, Juan Carlos, Ignacio and Agustín, all of them Ochoa y Plácido, which allow the Court to establish that there is a situation of extreme gravity and urgency; consequently, it is necessary to adopt provisional measures in favor of the persons mentioned in this paragraph in order to avoid irreparable damage to them, in accordance with the provisions of Article 63(2) of the American Convention. 8. That, under international human rights law, the purpose of provisional measures is to protect fundamental rights effectively, because they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 9. That the case referred to in the Commission’s request has not been submitted to it. 10. That, by virtue of their purpose and legal nature, granting provisional measures does not prejudge the merits of the case. 11. That, with regard to the State’s obligation to investigate, the Court has reiterated that this must be undertaken with all thoroughness and not as a mere formality intended a priori to be ineffective2. Thus, the investigation and punishment 2 Cf., among others, The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al. vs. Guatemala). Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 100; the “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al. vs. Guatemala). Reparations (Article