3 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. To comply with this duty to guarantee rights, a State Party has the erga omnes obligation to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction.2 5. That, under international human rights law, provisional measures are not merely preventive, in that they preserve a legal situation, but are rather fundamentally protective, since, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons, they protect human rights. Provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 6. That it is essential that the provisional measures are maintained in full force and effect until the Court orders their discontinuance and serves notice thereof upon the State.4 * * * 7. That the representatives informed that facts like pursuits, telephone threats and the murders of two former bodyguards of the beneficiaries have not been investigated. Among other remarks, they expressed that: (a) regarding criminal proceedings 277/2004, about the car incident occurred on March 7, 2003 which involved the beneficiary’s wife, the Public Prosecutor’s Office acted in an irregular manner in releasing the alleged responsible person, disregarding sections 60 and 62 of the Criminal Code. This action not only helped the person who was probably responsible for the crime to elude justice but also allowed said crime to go unpunished and prevented the causes that gave rise to the incident from being elucidated; (b) regarding preliminary inquiry CUH-6T2/402/2005-03, about telephone threats against Mr. Rivero, on January 17, 2008 the Public Prosecutor for the Safety of Persons and Institutions confirmed the decision not to exercise the criminal action. Such decision was challenged by the beneficiary on February 15, 2008 through the filing of an appeal for legal Cfr. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering clause 3; Matter of Carlos Nieto-Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 5, 2008, Considering clause 3; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008, Considering clause 19. 2 Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering clause 4; Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al; supra note 2, Considering clause 4; Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil; supra note 2, Considering clause 4. 3 4 Cfr. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 1, 2005, Considering clause 10; Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering clause 6; and Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2007, Considering clause 17.