7 3. Pursuant to Articles 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”): [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. Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth the duty of the States Party to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 5. The object of provisional measures, in national legal systems (domestic procedural law) in general, is to protect the rights of the parties to the dispute, ensuring that the judgment on the merits is not negatively affected by their actions pendente lite. 6. The object of urgent and provisional measures, under International Human Rights Law, goes further, as in addition to their essentially preventive nature, they effectively protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 7. The Court already established in its November 27, 2002 Order, that the background filed by the Commission in its request demonstrated prima facie the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency regarding the life and physical safety of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui Jiménez.1 8. The Inter-American Commission informed the Court on February 14, 2003 that Luis Uzcátegui would not be able to appear at the hearing summoned by the President of the Court on January 24, 2003 (supra Having Seen 8) and to which he was summoned on February 6 of that same year (supra Having Seen 13), in view of the lack of “the documentation required” (passport) and they therefore requested that his sworn statement be accepted (supra Having Seen 14). 9. As was stated by the President of the Inter-American Court in his February 6, 2003 Order:2 […] regarding any summons, when they refer to persons who are in the territory of the State, the latter must provide its cooperation to summon them. In this regard, Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure sets forth that: 1. The States Parties to a case have the obligation to cooperate so as to ensure that all notices, communications or summonses addressed to persons subject to their jurisdiction are duly executed. They shall also facilitate 1 Cf. Luis Uzcátegui vs. Venezuela Case. Provisional Measures. November 27, 2002 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Considering five. 2 Cf. Luis Uzcátegui vs. Venezuela Case. Provisional Measures. February 6, 2003 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Considering five.