2 Considering: 1. That Colombia is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court, in keeping with Article 62 of the Convention, on June 21, 1985. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes 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. That the Tribunal has established that the provisional measures are not only precautionary but also protective. The precautionary nature of the provisional measures is related to the framework of international contentious cases. In that sense, these measures are intended to preserve the rights that may be at risk until the controversy is settled. Their goal is to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits and in this way, avoid the violation of other rights in dispute, situation that might be harmless or that could adversary affect the useless effect of the final decision. The provisional measures make it possible for the State in question, in this sense, to comply with the final decision and, if applicable, to go ahead with the reparations so ordered.2 That as to the protective nature of the provisional measures, this Court has pointed out that provisional measures are transformed in a true judicial guarantee of precautionary nature, since they protect human rights inasmuch as they are intended to avoid irreparable damage to persons.3 IHL Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Edith Claudia Hernández, Human Rights Director of the Ministry of National Defense; Brigadier -General Jorge Rodríguez Clavijo, Head of Human Rights of the National Army; Lieutenant Colonel John Henry Arango Alzate, Human Rights Coordinator of the National Police; Colonel Efraín Oswaldo Aragón Sánchez, Human Rights Adviser to the General Inspection Office of the National Police; Oswaldo Ramos Arrendó, Head of the Legal Office of the Administrative Department of Security and Juliana Bustamante, Human Rights Adviser to the Administrative Department of Security; b) on behalf of the beneficiaries’ representatives: Luz Marina Monzón Cifuentes; Viviana Rodríguez Peña, and Oscar Javier Carbonell Valderrama, representatives of the Colombian Jurists Commission, and c) on behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Lilly Ching and Silvia Serrano, legal advisers. 2 Cf. Matter of Rodeo I and Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, considering clause seven. Case of the Plan de Sanchez Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009; Considering Clause three; Case of Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, Considering Clause three. 3 Cf. Case of “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001; considering clause four; Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”); Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center; Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) and El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering Clause six. Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of November 17, 2009; Considering clause four.