1977, and, in keeping with Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention holds that, “In 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. The provisions established in Article 63(2) of the Convention make the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal obligatory, as the basic principle of International Law, based on international case law, has indicated that States must comply with their obligations under the Convention in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 These orders imply a special duty to protect the beneficiaries of the measures as long as they are in force. A failure to comply with them can leave the State internationally responsible.2 4. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that in order for the Court to issue provisional measures, three conditions must be met: i) “extreme gravity;” ii) “urgency,” and iii) “avoiding irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in every situation in which the Tribunal’s intervention is requested. In the same way, the three conditions described must persist in order for the Court to maintain the protection it has ordered. If one of those conditions has ceased to be relevant, it will be up to the Tribunal to weigh the pertinence of continuing with the protective measures ordered.3 5. Since these provisional measures were ordered, the Venezuelan State has submitted only one bimonthly report, on May 26, 2010. That report indicated that an investigation is being carried out by the 68th District Attorney’s Office of the National Public Prosecutor with Full Jurisdiction in the Bolívar State Judicial Circuit. In the context of that investigation, a series of procedures have been carried out “to fully clear up the circumstances of manner, place and time of the escape or forced disappearance of Eduardo José Natera Balboa.” Those procedures include an interview with one of the supposed witnesses to the facts, as well as an interview with an official with the Boliviarian National Guard of Venezuela, who was also a witness. As far as the habeas corpus action brought by the relatives of the beneficiary, the Fourth Court of the First Control Instance of the Criminal Judicial Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, 19, Considering 6; Matter of Mery Naranjo. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 4, 2011, Considering 4, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2011, Considering 3. 1 2 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Benjamin, Constantine et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196 to 200; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, Considering 4, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 26, 2010. Considering 3. 3 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering 14; Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 22, 2011, Considering 2, and Matter of A.J. et al. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 22, 2011, Considering 10. 3