2 2. That Article 63.2 of the American Convention provides that in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters it has under its consideration, adopt the provisional measures that it deems pertinent. 3. That, in the terms of Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, [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. 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention points out the obligation that the States Parties have, to respect the rights and freedoms therein recognized, and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 5. That the events presented in the request of the Commission, as well as the depositions of the witnesses and the expert witness rendered at the seat of the Court during the public hearing on the merits of the Ivcher-Bronstein Case on November 20-21, 2000, and the final arguments of the Commission enable the Court to establish prima facie the existence of threats against the personal integrity and the legal guarantees of Messrs. Menachem Ivcher-Bronstein and Roger González. The prima facie case assessment standard and the application of presumptions vis-à-vis the needs for protection, have served as a basis for provisional measures adopted by this Court on different occasions.1 6. That it is the responsibility of the State to apply security measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction. 7. That the purpose of the Provisional Measures in the national legal systems (internal procedural law) in general, is to preserve the rights of the parties to the controversy, ensuring that the future judgment on the merits not be harmed by their actions pendente lite. 1 (cfr., inter alia, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Provisional Measures in the Digna Ochoa and Plácido et al. Case, Considering No. 5; Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 3, 1999, Provisional Measures in the Cesti-Hurtado Case, Considering No. 4; Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 27, 1999, Provisional Measures in the James et al. Case, Considering No. 8; Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 19, 1998, Provisional Measures in the Clemente-Teherán et al. Case, Considering No. 5; Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 22, 1997, Provisional Measures in the Álvarez et al. Case, Considering No. 5; Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 16, 1995, Provisional Measures in the Blake Case, Considering No. 4; Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 26, 1995, Provisional Measures in the Carpio-Nicolle Case, Considering No. 4; Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 4, 1995, Provisional Measures in the Carpio-Nicolle Case, Considering No. 5; Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 7, 1994, Provisional Measures in the CaballeroDelgado and Santana Case, Considering No. 3; Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 22, 1994, Provisional Measures in the Colotenango Case, Considering No. 5; Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 7, 2000, Provisional Measures in the Constitutional Court Case, Considering No. 7; Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000, Provisional Measures in the Haitians and Haitian-origin Dominican Persons in the Dominican Republic Case, Considering No. 5 and 9; and Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 9, 2000, Provisional Measures in the Paz de San José de Apartadó Community Case, Considering No. 4).