2 4. The Order issued by the Court on June 14, 2005, in which it reiterated the provisional measures in favor of the beneficiaries. 5. The communications of September 1, 2005; May 8, September 4, November 23 and December 15, 2006; March 27 and June 25, 2007, and January 30 and June 18, 2009, in which the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “Venezuela”) reported on the implementation of the provisional measures ordered in favor of the beneficiaries. 6. The communications presented by the representatives of the beneficiaries (hereinafter “the representatives”) on August 17 and 22, and October 3 and 20, 2005; June 9, October 10 and November 29, 2006; January 23, and May 11 and 31, 2007, February 5 and December 17, 2008, and January 16, March 11 and June 25, 2009, in which they forwarded their observations on the said reports of the State. 7. The communications presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) on October 18, 2005; June 23 and October 18, 2006; January 9, February 7 and May 25, 2007, and January 8, February 23, March 16 and July 2, 2009, in which they forwarded their observations on the said reports of the State and on the observations of the representatives. 8. The note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of July 20, 2007, in which, on the instruction of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), it asked the Commission to inform the Court about the procedural status of this matter being processed before it. 9. The communication of August 31, 2007, in which the Commission, in response to the Court’s request, advised that “no petition directly associated with the said provisional measures was being processed before the Commission.” 10. The note of the Secretariat of December 18, 2008, in which it asked the InterAmerican Commission and the representatives to present their arguments concerning whether the extreme gravity and the urgency of avoiding irreparable damage that had given rise to the adoption of the provisional measures in this matter persisted. CONSIDERING 1. That Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since August 9, 1977, and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. That the provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention confer an obligatory nature on the adoption by the State of the provisional measures that the Court orders it to take because, according to the basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State supported by international case law, States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 1 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of Colotenango. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court de July 12, 2007, fifth considering paragraph; Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia, Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, fifteenth considering paragraph.