-5CONSIDERING: 1. That Colombia is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights, under Article 1(1) of which State Parties are required 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, and that on June 21, 1985 said State recognized the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters not yet submitted to the Court. 3. That, on this issue, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure provides that: 1. At 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. […] 5. If the Court is not sitting, the President, in consultation with the Permanent Commission and, if possible, with the other Judges, shall call upon the government concerned to adopt such urgent measures as may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of any provisional measures that may be ordered by the Court at its next session. 4. That this request for provisional measures was filed directly by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin in the context of a matter that is under the consideration of the Court in the stage of supervision of compliance with the judgment, and it thus conforms to the provisions of Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. 5. That urgent and provisional measures may also be ordered at the stage of supervision of compliance with the judgment provided, however, that the information submitted to the Court reveals, prima facie, a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and impending irreparable damage to persons.2 6. That, in the International Law of Human Rights, provisional measures are not only precautionary to the extent that they maintain the legal status quo, but also and essentially they are protective in nature, as they protect human rights, insofar as they are intended to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a true preventive judicial guarantee.3 2 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2003, Considering clause No. 10; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 21, 2003, Considering clause No. 10; and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 6, 2002, Considering clause No. 9. 3 Cf. Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare Prison). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering clause No. 5; Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-