the representation of the beneficiaries 1 referred to the implementation of the provisional measures and to the situation of the beneficiaries of the measures. 4. The briefs of in which the Inter-American July 16 and December 6, 2010, May 17 and December 5, 2011, April 12 and November 9, 2012, and July 26, 2013, Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) referred to the implementation of the provisional measures and to the situation of the beneficiaries of the measures. 5. The communications of September 16, 2011, June 21, July 6 and 27, August 7 and November 30, 2012, and January 14, February 19, April 15 and July 30, 2013, in which the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) reiterated to the State the requirement that it present its reports on the implementation of the provisional measures. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since June 23, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 2. Article 63(2) of the Convention stipulates that three conditions must co-exist for the Court to be able to order the adoption of provisional measures: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) that they are intended “to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Furthermore, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 2 3. Based on its competence, in the context of provisional measures, the Court may consider only and strictly those arguments that are directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument can only be analyzed and decided during consideration of the merits of a contentious case. 3 A. Regarding the implementation of the provisional measures 4. In its reports of May 27 and October 19, 2010, March 16 and October 18, 2011, March 5 and September 18, 2012, and May 20, 2013, the State advised, inter alia, that: 1 Adrián Meléndez Quijano informed the Court that Benjamín Cuéllar Martínez, Director of the Human Rights Institute of the Universidad Centroamericana “José Simeón Cañas” (IDHUCA) had advised him that, as of June 15, 2012,” “the administrative and legal support that it had been providing to him had been terminated.” Consequently, Mr. Meléndez informed the Court, in the brief received on June 20, 2012, that, as of that date, he would be representing himself and his family members, in his capacity as “lawyer of the Republic and victim in this case.” Therefore, the Court, in order to indicate actions carried out by those who acted as representatives until June 15, 2012, and also the actions taken after that date, will refer to “the representatives of the beneficiaries”. 2 Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, third considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Barrios Family. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of May 30, 2013, fourth considering paragraph. 2