2 3. The phrase “a case not yet submitted to the Court” contained in Article 63(2), last paragraph, of the American Convention implies that there must be at least a slight possibility for the matter originating the request for provisional measures to be submitted to the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. 4. Pursuant to a comprehensive interpretation of the American Convention, the matter originating the request for provisional measures may only be submitted to the Court provided the proceeding set forth in Articles 44 and 46 to 48 of the American Convention has been initiated. Therefore, it will not be sufficient for the Commission to state that it has studied the matter pursuant to the regulatory proceeding applicable to provisional measures only. 5. The considerations above measures if the Inter-American study of a request in accordance on the admissibility or the merits show that the Court may only adopt provisional Commission has at least recorded and initiated the with the appropriate regulatory provisions, and ruling of the case will not be necessary. 6. The Commission stated that this “matter has not yet been classified as a request pursuant to the terms of Articles 44 and 46 to 48 of the Convention.” NOW, THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Articles 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 25 and 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, DECIDES: 1. Not to process this request for provisional measures until a petition is submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in accordance with Articles 44 and 46 to 48 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. To give notice of this Order to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Judges Cançado Trindade and Ventura-Robles informed the Court of their Joint Separate Opinion, attached to this Order. Alirio Abreu-Burelli President Sergio García-Ramírez Oliver Jackman