7 18. That, in its report of January 16, 2006, the State noted that “the facts that led to the request for provisional measures […] consist of the unlawful detention of [Mr. Uzcátegui,] a situation the resolution of which should not, in principle, call for the involvement of the Court […], as the State has mechanisms fit to work it out.” On May 28, 2007, the State reported that there had not been “instant cooperation by the victims’ representatives, which causes the adoption of the measures they requested not to look so urgent,” and, accordingly, it requested that the provisional measures be lifted, reiterating said request on July 2 and August 13, 2007. Since then, the State has not repeated the request. 19. That this Court has held that provisional measures are not merely precautionary but also and primarily protective in nature.3 The precautionary nature of the provisional measures relates to the context of international contentious cases. In that regard, such measures are aimed at preserving rights that are potentially at risk until the dispute is settled. Their object and purpose are to guarantee the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits, thus keeping the rights at stake from being impaired, a situation which might render the final decision ineffective or distort its useful effects. Provisional measures thus allow the State concerned to comply with the final decision and, as the case may be, to make reparations as ordered.4 20. That, as regards the protective nature of provisional measures, this Court has held that, provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable harm to persons are met, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of precautionary nature, as they protect human rights insofar as they are intended to avoid irreparable harm to persons.5 21. That, because this is a matter regarding provisional measures, the Court must consider only and strictly those arguments that directly relate to the extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument can be analyzed and adjudicated by the Court only at the merits stage of a contentious case.6 22. That, between March 2001 and February 2004, the Court was informed of facts such as alleged death threats, illegal searches and arbitrary detentions against the beneficiary and members of his family. On such basis, the Tribunal made a prima facie finding of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency of irreparable damage to the life and personal integrity of the beneficiary. 3 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, fourth considering clause; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of May 2, 2008, fourth considering clause; and Matter of Carlos Nieto-Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of August 5, 2008, fourth considering clause. 4 Cf. Matter of the Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, seventh considering clause; Matter of “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” newspapers. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, twenty-third considering clause. 5 Cf. Matter of the Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 4, eighth considering clause; Matter of the "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia" newspapers, supra note 4, twenty-fourth considering clause. 6 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, sixth considering clause; Mater of the Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 4, tenth considering clause, and Matter of "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia" newspapers, supra note 4, twenty-fifth considering clause.