3 3. In contentious cases already submitted to the Court, the victims or alleged victims, their next of kin, or their duly accredited representatives, may present a request for provisional measures directly to the Court. [...] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, which obligation is imposed not only in connection with the power of the State but also in relation to the actions of individual third parties.1 5. That the adoption of these provisional measures does not imply a decision on the merits of the dispute2 or on the State’s responsibility for the events reported in connection with the case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. By adopting provisional measures, the Court is only exercising its mandate under the Convention, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency that require measures of protection in order to prevent irreparable damage to persons.3 6. That, in matters such as the one before this Court, the extreme seriousness of the threat should be assessed taking into account the specific context, and that it is clear that, if fundamental rights such as the right to life and physical integrity are subject to such type of threat, the context warrants consideration of provisional measures.4 7. That the urgency refers to special and exceptional situations that require and warrant immediate action and response aimed at averting the threat. These are circumstances that because of their own nature imply an imminent risk. The nature of the remedial action derives from the urgency of the threat. This should imply, above all, an immediate and, in principle, temporary measure in order to address such situation, insofar as the lack of response would be, in itself, dangerous.5 1 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering clause No. 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 No. 19; and 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 No. 3. 2 Cf. Case of Guerrero-Gallucci and Martínez-Barrios. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering Clause No. 14; y, Matter of "Globovisión" Television Station. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January, 29, 2008, Considering Clause No. 13. 3 Cf. Matter of James et al Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 27, 1998, Considering clause No. 7, and Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of Gloria Giralt de García-Prieto et al. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2007, Considering clause No. 6. 4 Cf. Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al., supra note 1, Considering Clause No. 16; and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering clause No. 17. 5 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 4, Considering Clause No. 18.