5 of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. […] 6. The beneficiaries of urgent measures or provisional measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 4. That the present request for provisional measures has been submitted directly by the representatives of the alleged victims in a case before the Court; therefore, the request is consistent with Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. 5. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation that the States parties must respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in it and ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. This underscores the position of the State as guarantor of the rights of the persons in its custody. These obligations are even more evident for persons involved in proceedings before the supervisory organs of the American Convention.1 6. That the case under which the request of the representatives was submitted is currently before the Court to determine its merits, and that, nonetheless, the adoption of provisional measures does not imply a decision as to the merits of the controversy between the petitioner and the State. In adopting provisional measures, this Court is only ensuring that the Tribunal can faithfully perform its mandate relative to the Convention in cases of extreme gravity and urgency that require protective measures to prevent irreparable harm to persons.2 7. That the State reported that it has taken several measures to comply with the Order of the President of December 3, 2006 (supra Having Seen 5 and 7). In their observations on the State’s report, the representatives were in agreement with the State that a person had been appointed within the National Civil Police to handle any emergency request from Mr. Ricardo Iglesias Herrera (supra Having Seen 10(a)). 8. That the situation described by the representatives (supra Having Seen 3, 4 and 10) reveals prima facie the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that makes it necessary to prevent irreparable damage to the rights to life and to personal integrity of Mr. Ricardo Alberto Iglesias Herrera, who was offered by the representatives to serve as an expert witness in the present case, and pursuant to point one of the operative clauses of the Order of the President of December 14, 2006 his expert opinion was submitted by affidavit on January 12, 2007 (supra Having Seen 6 and 9). The standard of prima facie assessment 1 Cfr. Matter of Gloria Giralt de García Prieto et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 26, 2006, fourth considering clause; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, fifth considering clause; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, seventh considering clause. Cfr. Matter of Giraldo Cardona. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2006, point six of considering clause; Matter of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira" Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 30, 2006, sixth considering clause; and Matter of Gloria Giralt de García Prieto et al. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, fifth considering clause. 2