4 5. Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth the duty of the States Party to respect the rights and liberties recognized therein and to ensure their free and full exercise by all persons under their jurisdiction. 6. In its August 29, 2001 Order, the Court decided: 1. The Court will receive and independently hear the requests, arguments and evidence by the beneficiaries of the provisional measures it has adopted in cases in which an application has been filed before the Court, without this releasing the Commission of its duty, within the framework of its obligations under the Convention, of reporting to the Court, when the latter so requests. 2. Only the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights may provide information to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the processing of measures the latter has ordered and when no application has been filed before the latter. 7. The purpose of Provisional Measures, in the national legal systems (domestic procedural law) in general, is to protect the rights of the parties to a dispute, ensuring that the judgment on the merits does not suffer detriment due to actions by the parties pendente lite. 8. The purpose of urgent and provisional measures, in International Human Rights Law, goes further as, in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they effectively protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 9. The instant Bámaca Velásquez vs. Guatemala case is being heard by the Court in the stage of compliance with judgment and, therefore, pursuant to the August 29, 2001 Order of the Court (supra Considering six), the representatives of the victims have locus standi to submit their requests directly to the Court. 10. Urgent and provisional measures may also be applied during the stage in which the Court oversees compliance with its judgments, insofar as the information submitted to the Court demonstrates prima facie the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and imminence of irreparable damage to persons.1 11. The Inter-American Court stated, in its judgment on the merits in the instant case, that “the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, become victims;”2 and it established that: [t]he Court also considers that ignorance of the whereabouts of Bámaca Velásquez caused his next of kin the profound anguish mentioned by the 1 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Provisional Measures. September 6, 2002 Order, Considering nine; Loayza Tamayo Case. Provisional Measures. February 3, 2001 Order. Series E No. 3, Considering five and six, pp. 241-255 and Loayza Tamayo Case. Provisional Measures. December 13, 2000 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Series E No. 3, Considering seven, pp. 231-239. 2 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case. November 25, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 70, para. 160, quoting: “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). November 19, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 63, paras. 175 and 176 and Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 27, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 43, para. 59; Blake Case. January 24, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 36, para. 115.