1. Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention" or “the Convention") since August 9, 1977 and, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, has accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. 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. Pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention, the State’s adoption of the provisional measures ordered by the Court is mandatory, given that the basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, has indicated that States must comply with their obligations under the Convention in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). 2 These orders imply a special duty to protect the beneficiaries of the measures, insofar as they are in force, and any breach thereof may result in international responsibility of the State. 3 4. According to Article 63(2) of the Convention, three conditions must be met in order for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, namely: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) "urgency” and (iii) when necessary to avoid “irreparable damage to people”. These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. 4 Similarly, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of the conditions is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of maintaining the protection ordered. 5 5. The representatives sustained that the relatives had filed different complaints regarding the treatment given to those incarcerated at El Rodeo III Capital Judicial Confinement Center. In fact, they reported that, during a search conducted on July 5, 2012, State’s officials had fired pellets at inmates and injured them using wooden batons, sticks and machetes; additionally, the inmates also suffered abuse whilst being transferred to the courts. In a complaint reported to the Ministry of the Popular Power for the Prison Service, the relatives stated that "[o]n each one of the inmates, it is possible to observe marks on different parts of their bodies, as a result of beatings, which did not stop that day, but that continued until Monday July 9, 2012, and was not 2 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 Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 26, 2012, second considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196 to 200, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, second considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen; twenty-second considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle¸ fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 26, 2012, third considering paragraph. 3