-7forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, therefore, it was not possible to comply with the request.” 15. The public hearing on the request for provisional measures held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on July 6, 2006, at which there appeared: (a) for the InterAmerican Commission: Víctor H. Madrigal Borloz and Nerea Aparicio, legal advisers; (b) for the representatives: María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, beneficiary; and Verónica Heredia and Silvia de los Santos, beneficiaries and representatives; and (c) for the State: Jorge Nelson Cardozo, Adviser to the Cabinet of the Minister of Foreign Affairs; Ambassador Horacio Méndez Carreras, Special Representative for Human Rights in the International Sphere of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship; Alberto Javier Salgado, of the Human Rights Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship; Andrea Gladis Gualde, National Director of International Affairs of the Human Rights Secretariat; Pilar Mayoral and Martín Rico, of the Human Rights Secretariat; Máximo Pérez Catán, Minister of the Chubut Province Government; Federico Horacio Ramos, Deputy Secretary for Prison Affairs of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights; and Ambassador Juan José Arcuri, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic to the Government of Costa Rica. 16. The arguments adduced by the Commission during the said hearing, in which, in brief, it referred to: a) The precautionary measures adopted by the Commission and the criteria used to request the Court to adopt provisional measures. When deciding to request the adoption of provisional measures, the Commission made is assessment bearing in mind the “overall situation,” evaluating the effectiveness of the measures and taking into consideration, in particular, the events of April 23, 2006, with regard to persons under the protection of precautionary measures, and the fact that there was total disagreement about the circumstances in which these events occurred; b) The risk of irreparable damage for the beneficiaries of the measures. In particular, it stated that, in its request for measures, it had only included those persons with regard to whom it had information that they were in danger and who they had contacted. It referred to the situation of the witnesses of what happened to Iván, the next of kin of Iván Torres and of David Hayes, and of the other individuals who had been “inadvertently involved.” In addition, it indicated that the representatives had requested measures for another group of people, based on their actions since the Order of the President of the Court; c) Regarding Mr. Alcaína, it indicated that “apparently, he would be included” in these measures because he was a witness of what happened to Valeria Torres on April 23, 2006. The State should provide information on his situation; d) The need to implement adequate and concrete measures to ensure the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries; to this end, the measures should not be provided by the police units that are alleged to have committed the violations; and e) The State has not questioned the situation of urgency that has been ratified.