CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on July 28, 1978, and, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the Convention stipulates that for the Court to order provisional measures, three conditions must be met: (i) “extreme gravity;” (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) a need to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must be present at the same time and in all situations in which the Court’s intervention is requested. In addition, these three conditions must persist in order for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of these conditions is no longer met, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing with the protection ordered.1 3. The adoption of provisional measures requires that the gravity of the situation be “extreme,” meaning that it must be at the highest or most elevated level. The urgent nature of the situation implies that the risk or threat involved is imminent, which also supposes that the answer to remedy the situation is immediate. Lastly, a reasonable probability must exist that harm will come to pass, and the situation must not involve rights or legal interests that can be repaired.2 4. According to Article 27(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, “at any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention.” 5. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only precautionary, in the sense of preserving a juridical situation, but are also fundamentally protective inasmuch as they protect human rights and seek to prevent irreparable damage to persons. In this way, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee that is preventive in nature.3 a) Representative’s request and the parties’ observations 6. The representative referred to the “measure preventing [Ms. De La Cruz’s] exit 1 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Certain Venezuelan Penitentiary Centers, Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2011, fourth considering clause, and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 25, 2011, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center, Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and Internado Judicial Capital El Rodeo I y el Rodeo II. Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, third considering paragraph; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 15, 2010, eighth considering paragraph, and Matter of COFAVIC-Case of the Caracazo. Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, sixth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación”. Provisional Measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2010, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation. Provisional Measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 21, 2010, fifth considering paragraph. 2