7 2. [r]efrain from unlawfully restricting the right to freedom of movement of the members of the Sarayaku indigenous people[;] 3. [i]nvestigate the assaults committed on members of the Sarayaku Indigenous People[; and] 4. [p]rotect the special relationship that the Kichwa community of Sarayaku have with their ancestral territory; in particular, protect the use and enjoyment of their collective title to the property and its natural resources and take the measures necessary to avoid immediate and irreparable damage resulting from the activities of third parties who enter the Sarayaku people’s territory or who exploit the existing natural resources within that territory, until such time as the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights have adopted a final decision on the matter. Further, these measures are to be planned by mutual agreement between the State and the representatives of the Kichwa indigenous people of Sarayaku and, given the very grave and delicate situation, implemented immediately. 4. The June 28, 2004 note from the Secretariat of the Court where, on instructions from the full Court, it requested that the State submit to the Court, by July 1, 2004 at the latest, its comments on the Commission’s request for provisional measures and any information it might it have on the situation of “extreme gravity and urgency” and the possibility that “irreparable harm” might be done to the members of the Sarayaku indigenous people and their defenders. 5. The July 2, 2004 communication where the State requested a 15-day extension to file its comments on the Commission’s request seeking provisional measures. 6. The July 5, 2004 note from the Secretariat where, following instructions from the full Court, it informed the State that the extension had not been authorized “as this was a request seeking provisional measures, in which a situation of ‘extreme gravity and urgency’ is alleged, as is the possibility that ‘irreparable harm’ might be caused to the members of the Sarayaku indigenous people and their defenders.” CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The State ratified the American Convention on December 28, 1977 and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, recognized the Court’s binding jurisdiction on July 24, 1984. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides 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. Article 25(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure provides that “[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.”