2. With respect to a matter not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. […] 7. The monitoring of provisional or urgent measures ordered shall be carried out by means of the submission of State’s reports and the filing of the corresponding observations to those reports by the beneficiaries of such measures or their representatives. The Commission shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives. […] 4. According to the International Human Rights Law, the provisional measures are not only precautionary in the sense that they preserve a legal situation, but they are also mainly protective since they protect human rights, insofar as they avoid irreparable damage to people. Provisional measures are adopted provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met. In this sense, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature4. 5. By reason of its competence, within the framework of provisional measures, it falls upon the Court to consider only those arguments which relate strictly to the extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Such other fact or argument can only be analyzed and decided during the consideration of the merits of a contentious case5. 6. At the public hearing held in this matter (supra Having Seen clause 5), the Tribunal requested the representatives of the beneficiaries and the Inter-American Commission to put it in writing in what specific way the State did not comply with the duty to prevent and it also requested the State to indicate whether it considered that it had complied with such a duty. Moreover, the Tribunal also requested the parties to indicate whether there is a remedy available to file with the Constitutional Court in order to allege the presumed non-compliance with Court Order 004 issued by such court as mentioned by the representatives at the public hearing (supra Having Seen clause 5). In addition, the President of the Tribunal indicated to the parties that the Court needed “clarifications as to dates, figures, circumstances and the […] assessment from both sides, from the representatives and the State and, of course, from the [Inter-American] Commission” of these provisional measures. In this respect, the President mentioned that the information that the Tribunal might receive within the time limit granted to the parties, it would be “submitted to the attention of the interested parties [of this matter] so that the Court [might] gather all the facts with which to decide whether [these] provisional measures continu[e] in force”. Based on the above, the Tribunal shall take into account the information presented by the parties in order to assess the enforcement of these provisional measures. 4 See Case of “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001; Considering Clause four; and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, Considering Clause five. 5 See Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 20, 1998; considering clause six; Matter of Urso Blanco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 25, 2011, Considering Clause four. 3