[3.] To implement technical protection measures for the seats of ASFADDES already coordinated in the Follow-up Committee framework. [4.] Centralize the investigation of facts denounced in the National Unit of Human Rights of the State General Attorney’s Office aimed at finding, judging, and punishing the liable parties [.] CONSIDERING: 1. That Colombia has been Member State of the American Convention since July 31, 1973 and recognized the competence of the Court according to Article 62 of the Convention on June 21, 1985. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention decides that, in cases of “extreme seriousness and urgency, and whenever it is necessary to avoid irreparable harm to people”, the Court can, in unknown matters, at the request of the Commission, adopt any provisional relevant measures. 3. That in the terms set in Article 25(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: [i]f the Court were not in session, the President, in consultation with the permanent commission and, if possible, with the rest of the judges, will require the corresponding government to deliver the necessary pressing providences to ensure the effectiveness of the provisional measures that the Court might adopt in its next session. 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention indicates the duty of the State Parties to the Convention to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure everybody under their jurisdiction, including individuals related to ASFADDES in this case, to freely and fully exercise them. 5. That, as stated by the Court, “it is the State’s responsibility to adopt safety measures to protect the life of every person under their jurisdiction; this duty is even more evident when it is related to those involved in proceedings before supervisory bodies of the American Convention.”1 6. That the purpose of the provisional measures in the national juridical systems (internal procedural law) in general, is to preserve the rights of the parties in dispute, by ensuring that the future merits judgment is not harmed by their facts pendente lite.2 7. That the purpose of the provisional measures, in the International Law of Human Rights, goes beyond since besides its essentially preventive nature, they 1 Cfr. Paz de San Jose de Apartado Community Case. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on October 9, 2000, eighth whereas clause; Constitutional Court Case. Provisional Measures. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on August 14, 2000, E Series, No. 2, ninth whereas clause; Constitutional Court Case. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on April 7, 2000, E Series No. 2, ninth whereas clause, Digna Ochoa et al. Case. Provisional Measures. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on November 17, 1999, E Series No. 2, seventh whereas clause; and Álvarez et al. Case. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on July 22, 1997, E Series No. 2, eighth whereas clause. 2 Cfr. Paz de San Jose de Apartado Community Case. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on October 9, 2000, ninth whereas clause; and the Constitutional Court Case. Provisional Measures. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on April 7, 2000, E Series, No. 2, tenth.