12 1. That the Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since April 19, 1978, and has recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, on March 25, 1999. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may 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. That, in relation to this matter, Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that: [a]t 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. [w]ith respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the duty of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 5. That in International Human Rights Law, urgent and provisional measures are not only of a precautionary nature, in the sense that they preserve a legal situation, but also, and mainly, of a protective nature, in the sense that they safeguard human rights, to the extent that they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met, urgent and provisional measures become a true judicial guarantee of a preventive nature3. 6. That the instant case, which gave rise to the determination of provisional measures, is not being heard by the Court on its merits, and, therefore, the adoption of provisional measures does not imply a decision on the merits of the dispute between the petitioners and the State. By adopting provisional measures, the Tribunal is only guaranteeing that its mandate will be faithfully executed pursuant to the Convention, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency that require measures of protection to avoid irreparable damage to persons4. 3 Cfr. Matter of Ramírez- Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2005, Considering clause 5; Matter of Pilar Noriega-García et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 29, 2005, Considering clause 4; and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2005, Considering clause 4. 4 Cfr. Case of Raxcacó et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2005, Considering clause 11; Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2004, Considering clause 10; and Matter of “El