under the International Law of Human Rights, provisional measures have, furthermore, a preventive purpose inasmuch as they are intended to protect human rights, preventing individuals from suffering irreparable harm.30 29. In this regard, in 2000 the Court ratified, during the monitoring of compliance with a previous ruling, provisional measures ordered prior to this stage.31 This is the first precedent where the Court, during the monitoring of compliance with the respective judgment, decided to maintain the measures ordered prior to ruling on the merits. However, in 2002, the Court, for the first time, ordered provisional measures following issuance of the judgment on merits and reparations. In the years that followed, this competence has continued to be exercised without it being questioned by any State, let alone a Judge of the Court. In the 2002 decision, the Court made specific reference to its jurisdiction to grant provisional measures at this stage by stating the following: The purpose of provisional measures, in International Human Rights Law, is to effectively protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Said measures can also be applied during the stage in which compliance with the judgment is overseen; in the instant case it is probable that irreparable damage will occur [preventing] faithful and full compliance with the judgment on merits and reparations in the case of the Mayagna Community, [thus the] adoption of said measures is in order.32 30. Thus, the Court has ordered provisional measures in 26 cases during the monitoring compliance with judgments stage, which has protected the rights of approximately 2,500 people. It should be emphasized that through the adoption of these provisional measures the Court has been able to ensure the protection of such fundamental rights as life and integrity and personal freedom. IV. Importance of provisional measures during monitoring compliance with judgments. 31. Based on general international law, the Court has stated that, much like any body with a jurisdictional function, it has the inherent power to determine the scope of its competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz ). The Court "cannot 30 Case of Massacre Plan de Sánchez (Salvador Jerónimo et al.) Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 8, 2004, Considering Clause five and six, and Integrantes del Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial (ECAP). Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2006, Considering Clause five and six. 31 Case of Blake. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000, operative paragraph one. A year later, in the Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, the Court also continued the provisional measures ordered prior to the judgment on reparations issued in the case. Cf. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2001, operative paragraph two. 32 Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 24, Considering Clause nine. See also Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 21, 2003, Considering Clause ten. 11