2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid 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.” 3. The provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention signify that the provisional measures ordered by this Court are obligatory, because a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, has indicated that State must comply with their treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). 1 These orders entail a special obligation of protection for the beneficiaries of the measures, while they are in force, and failure to comply with them may give rise to the international responsibility of the State. 2 4. Article 63(2) of the Convention stipulates that three conditions must co-exist for the Court to be able to order the adoption of provisional measures: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) that they are intended “to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Thus, this Court recalls that the American Convention requires that, in order to adopt provisional measures, the gravity must be “extreme”; in other words, at its highest and most intense level. The urgent nature means that the risk or threat involved must be imminent, which also supposes that the response to remedy it is immediate. Lastly, with regard to the damage, there must be a reasonable probability that it will materialize, and it should not relate to legal rights or property that may be repaired. The Court recalls that, when ordering the measures of protection, the standard of assessment of the requirements by the Court or its President is prima facie and, at times, it is necessary to apply presumptions in view of the need for protection. 3 Furthermore, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 4 Moreover, maintenance of the measures of protection requires the Court to make a more rigorous evaluation of the persistence of the situation that gave rise to them. 5 5. These measures were ordered based on the prima facie assessment of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in relation to the rights to life and to personal integrity of the beneficiary owing to his alleged disappearance while in the State’s custody. Thus, the events 1 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Case of the Barrios Family. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 30, 2013, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 20, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196 to 200, and Matter of certain Venezuelan Prisons, Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, second considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, tenth considering paragraph, and Ávila Moreno et al. (Case of Operation Genesis). Request for provisional measures with regard to Colombia, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 30, 2013, eighth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, third considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, forty-fourth considering paragraph. 3