international protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States. 3. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that: In 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. 4. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not merely preventive, in that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather they are essentially protective, since they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applicable provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage are present. In this way, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature. 1 5. In this matter, on several occasions the State has asked that the provisional measures be lifted. Before the Court can determine whether it is necessary to maintain these measures, it must examine how these measures are being implemented. As the Court has indicated in other orders issued in this matter (supra having seen paragraph 1), based on its competence, in the context of provisional measures, the Court may consider only and strictly those arguments that are directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument may only be analyzed and decided during the consideration of the merits of a contentious case. 2 Consequently, in this matter, it is not incumbent on the Court to take into account information related to presumed acts perpetrated outside the humanitarian zones of Nueva Esperanza, Pueblo Nuevo, Caño Claro and El Tesoro, and the five biodiversity zones known Erasmo Sierra, Enrique Petro, Familia Tuberquia, Ligia María Chaverra and Efrén Romaña, whose members are beneficiaries of these provisional measures, or to acts that prejudice individuals who are not protected by these measures. 3 1 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Castro Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to México. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, fifth considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, and Matter of Castro Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to México. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, sixth considering paragraph. 3 The Court will not take into account the following incidents presented by the representatives: a. On April 3, 2011, “an attack had been thwarted against the member of the lower council of Caño Manso, Santander Nisperusa,” who had “expressed his concern owing to the existence of a list containing the names of individuals who were to be executed in the hands of paramilitaries. b. In a document attached to the brief of April 15, 2011, they provided information on 46 incidents of alleged threats, intimidation and damage to property that had presumably been perpetrated by “occupants in bad faith” and “paramilitaries” between February 12 and April 8, 2011, and were presumably related to the adoption of these provisional measures. According to the representatives of the beneficiaries, “[s]ince the well-known paramilitary operations occurred on April 8, [2011, they were] unaware of no effective operations to protect the life and integrity of the Afro-Colombians […] who inhabit the humanitarian zones and the biodiversity zones in the Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó.” c. On April 15, 2011, they reported a presumed “occupation of collective lands [by] a group [… of] paramilitaries in civilian clothing bearing rifles.” They also indicated that around this time, “the soldiers […] withdrew from the places on the perimeter of the humanitarian zones and the biodiversity zones where they had established a presence and where those who are claiming Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó lands are located.” 3