3. The briefs of January 25 and 30, 2013, in which the Venezuelan Prison Observatory (hereinafter “the representatives”) provided information on, respectively, the acts of violence that occurred on January 25, 2013, in the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) resulting in death and injuries and the transfer of inmates from the Uribana Prison to the Tocorón Prison, and that, on January 28, 2013, a detainee who was being transferred had presumably been “shot and killed.” 4. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court of January 28 and 31, 2013, in which, on the instruction of the President of the Court, it asked the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “Venezuela”) to submit information on the events referred to by the representatives (supra having seen paragraph 3), by February 6, 2013, at the latest. 5. The brief of February 5, 2013, in which the non-governmental organization “Una Ventana a la Libertad” (hereinafter “the representatives”) advised that a complaint had been filed before the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela concerning the events that occurred on January 25, 2013, in the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison). 6. The brief of February 6, 2013, in which the State presented information from the Ministry of People’s Power for the Prison Service corresponding to the events referred to by the representatives (supra having seen paragraphs 3 and 5) and indicated that supplementary information from the Public Prosecution Service and the Ombudsman’s Office would be forwarded shortly. 7. The brief of February 8, 2013, in which, among other matter, the State requested an extension of the time frame in order to determine the respective responsibilities for the events that had occurred at the Uribana Prison, because the corresponding criminal investigation was being conducted. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. 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.” 2. The provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention signify that the adoption by the State of the provisional measures ordered by this Court is compulsory, because a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, indicates that State must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 Such orders entail a special obligation of protection for the beneficiaries of the measures, while they are in force, and failure to comply with them may result in the international responsibility of the State.2 1 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origen in the Dominican Republic. Provisional measures with regard to the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196 to 200, and Matter of certain Venezuelan 2