observations on the information forwarded by the State, and also the brief of September 16, 2010, and its attachments, whereby they forwarded their observations on the report presented by the State during the public hearing (supra second having seen paragraph), and additional information in response to a request by the Court at the end of the said hearing (infra sixth having seen paragraph). 4. The communications of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) of April 14 and July 31, 2009, April 22 and August 27, 2010, and February 17, 2011, in which it presented its observations on the information forwarded by the State and the representatives (supra third and fourth having seen paragraphs) and information on alleged threats received by the beneficiaries of these provisional measures. 5. The Order of the President of the Court of July 21, 2010, in which he convened a public hearing in this matter, in order to hear precise updated information from the State, together with the observations of the representatives and the Inter-American Commission concerning specific aspects relating to the implementation of these provisional measures. 6. The arguments of the parties at the public hearing on these provisional measures held at the seat of the Court on September 2, 2010.1 CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since May 25, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 2. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that three conditions must be met for the Court to order provisional measures in a specific case: (i) “extreme gravity,” (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) the need “to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” This provision is, in turn regulated by Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court2 (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”). These three conditions must coexist and persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered; if one of them is no longer valid the Court must assess the pertinence of maintaining the protection ordered.3 3. The provision established in Article 63(2) of the Convention signifies that the provisional measures ordered by this Court are compulsory, because a basic principle of international law, upheld by international jurisprudence, indicates that the States must comply with their international treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).4 1 There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the State: Marco Tulio Escobar Orrego, María Elena de Jesús Rodríguez López, Hugo Enrique Martínez Juárez and Rafael Eduardo Bran Paz; (b) for the Inter-American Commission: Lilly Ching Soto, and (c) for the representatives of the beneficiaries: Juan Francisco Soto Forno, Héctor Estuardo Reyes Chiquin and Fredy Armando Peccerelli. 2 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved during its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 3 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of September 2, 2010, twenty-sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of November 25, 2010, second considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of María Lourdes Afiuni. 2