7). In the brief of January 8, 2013, the State advised, inter alia, that Guillermo Flores had “state[d] expressly that he did not wish to be the object of any measure of protection because he considered that there was no risk to either himself or his family group.” 9. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of January 11, 2013, in which, in response to the information provided by the State in its brief of January 8, 2013 (supra having seen paragraph 8), the Inter-American Commission and the representatives were granted a specific time frame for presenting any observations they deemed pertinent on this brief. 10. The briefs of January 17 and 23, 2013, in which representatives and the Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the State’s brief of January 8, 2013 (supra having seen paragraph 8). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The Argentine Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 5, 1984, and pursuant to Article 62 thereof, it accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court in the same instrument of ratification. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to prevent irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall 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.” This provisions is also regulated in Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”) 1 and is compulsory for States, because a basic principle of the law on State responsibility, supported by international case law, indicates that States must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 3. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only preventive in that they preserve a legal situation, but they are also fundamentally protective because they protect human rights inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 3 Thus, Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that, three conditions must concur for the Court to order provisional measures: (a) “extreme gravity”; (b) “urgency”, and (c) that they seek “to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” Thus, provisional measures become a real legal guarantee of a preventive nature.4 These three conditions must be present in any situation in which the Court is asked to 1 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session, held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luís Galdámez Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 24, 2012, second considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luís Galdámez Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 24, 2012, third considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Case of De la Cruz Flores. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 25, 2012, fifth considering paragraph. 3