2 1. Colombia is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, "the American Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides 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.” 3. Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that “[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. In particular, as held by the Court, the State has a duty to adopt security measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction and this duty is even stronger regarding those who take part in proceedings before the entities in charge of supervising the enforcement of the American Convention. 5. International Human Rights Law provides that urgent provisional measures are also aimed at protecting fundamental human rights, avoiding irreparable damage to individuals. 6. To effectively guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention, a State Party has a duty, erga omnes, to protect all people subject to its jurisdiction. * * * 7. The representative informed that Messrs. Ricardo Gutiérrez-Soler, Yaqueline Reyes, Leonardo Gutiérrez-Rubiano, Ricardo Gutiérrez-Rubiano, Sulma Tatiana Gutiérrez-Rubiano, Paula Camila Gutiérrez-Reyes and Luisa Fernanda Gutiérrez-Reyes “were forced to leave the country […] given the difficult safety circumstances they were undergoing and the lack of an overall protection strategy by the State”. According to the representatives, the reasons for such decision are consistent with the arguments submitted by the Court in the observations to follow-up provisional measures, consisting in the lack of a comprehensive prevention and protection policy; failure to honor the commitments made by the State under follow-up measures; failure to identify the people liable for the aggressions; the occurrence of new and permanent harassment events without any necessary measures to prevent them; ignorance of the group of beneficiaries for provisional measures and denial of protection measures for some relatives. 8. The State requested the Court to rescind the provisional measures on the grounds that “Mr. Ricardo Gutiérrez-Soler and his family are residing abroad, thus hindering the implementation of such measures.” In that regard, both the Commission and the representatives stated that “the measures should be implemented if they return to Colombia," since there is the possibility that "part of or the entire family may return to Colombia". Moreover, they requested to keep the provisional measures in force regarding the beneficiaries who continue residing in Colombia, namely: María Elena Soler de