5 Notwithstanding, it considered that there is a contradiction between the information provided by the State and the information provided by the representatives regarding the complaints allegedly filed by the beneficiary López-Álvarez, wherefore it requested the pertinent clarification and information regarding the progress in the pertinent investigation. 9. That “in the context of domestic procedural law, provisional measures are usually intended to preserve the rights of the parties to a dispute, guaranteeing that the enforcement of the judgment on the merits rendered in a case will not be hindered or prevented by any action taken by the parties pendente lite. Under Human Rights International Law, provisional measures are not only precautionary, to the extent that they preserve a legal status, but essentially protective in nature, for they protect human rights, insofar as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons.”4 10. That, furthermore, provisional measures are exceptional, are ordered in response to the need of protection, and, once ordered, must be maintained as long as the Court deems that the prerequisites of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to prevent irreparable damage to the rights of the persons thereby protected persist.5 11. That though the representatives alleged that Alfredo López-Álvarez and Teresa Reyes-Reyes had suffered threats and harassment (supra Considering clause 7), the Court notes that, in accordance with the representatives, the facts and situations described are related to the defense of the lands belonging to the Garifuna community of Triunfo de la Cruz. In this regard, it is relevant to reiterate that these provisional measures were intended to protect the right to life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries of such measures, who faced a situation of extreme gravity and urgency as a result of their capacity as witnesses in the case of López-Álvarez (supra Considering clause 5). 12. That this Court recalls that in the processing of the case of López-Álvarez, Alfredo López-Álvarez, Teresa Reyes-Reyes, and Gregoria Flores-Martínez were summoned by the Court to give testimony at the public hearing of the case, and that before appearing at such hearing, Gregoria Flores-Martínez was attacked with fire shots and wounded as she was heading to the community of Triunfo de la Cruz to collect the statements (affidavits) rendered by other witnesses in the case of LópezÁlvarez, which was the grounds for the request for these provisional measures. Additionally, it is to be noted that, according to the alleged violations described by the Commission in its application and by the representatives in their brief of pleadings, motions and evidence filed in the case referred to above, in its Judgment of February 1, 2006, the Court determined the international responsibility of the State for the violation of Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty); 5(1), 5(2), and 5(4) (Right to Humane Treatment); 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), Cf. Matter of the Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of March 30, 2006, Considering clauses 4 and 5; Matter of the Persons Imprisoned in the “Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira” Penitentiary in Araraquara. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of September 30, 2006, Considering clauses 4 and 5; and Matter of Colotenango. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 12, 2007, Considering clause 6. 5 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of March 14, 2001, Considering clause 3; Matter of Leonel Rivera et al., supra note 2, Considering clause 13, and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of January 22, 2009, Considering clause 14. 4