7 1. Barbados has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since November 27, 1982 and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on June 4, 2000. 2. Article 63(2) of the said Convention provides 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. Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 4. Article 1(1) of the Convention imposes on States Parties the obligation to respect the rights and freedoms set out in that treaty and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the said rights and freedoms. 5. As the Court has repeatedly held, it is the responsibility of the State to adopt measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction and this duty is particularly compelling in the case of persons currently the subject of a proceeding before the supervisory organs of the American Convention1. 6. In light of the well-established principles regarding international state responsibility, whereby States are required to comply in good faith with their treaty obligations (pacta sunt servanda), provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention have an obligatory character. Consequently, Barbados may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification to evade such international commitments. A State Party’s treaty obligations, furthermore, are binding upon all of that State’s national institutions2. 7. The representations made by the Commission (supra twelfth and twentieth “Having Regard To”) reveal prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, 1 Cf., inter alia, Case of Comunidad de Paz de San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, sixth “Whereas”; Case of Comunidades del Jiguamiandó y del Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, sixth “Whereas”, and Case of Boyce and Joseph. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2004, fifth “Whereas”. Cf. Case of Loayza-Tamayo. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 3, 2005, fifth “Whereas”. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 3, 2005, fifth “Whereas”. 2