such facility. In August 2010, the State inaugurated other centers of socioeducational internment in the state of Espirito Santo, which would allow the deactivation of a part of UNIS and the assignment of another part for the protective measures. The State “expects” that such deactivation should occur before March 31, 2011. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since September 25, 1992, and pursuant to Article 62 thereof, it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention states that “in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court can adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure regulates this provision. 3. This request for provisional measures does not stem from a case before the Court, but rather in the framework of the precautionary measures MC-224-09, pending before the Inter-American Commission since July 15, 2009. 4. In International Human Rights Law, provisional measures not only have a precautionary character, in the sense that they preserve a legally cognizable situation, but also a fundamentally protective one as they seek to safeguard human rights and avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applied as long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to prevent irreparable harm to persons are met. Thus, provisional measures are transformed in a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature. 2 5. The prima facie standard for assessing a case and the application of presumptions in the face of needs for protection have led the President and the Court to order provisional measures on several occasions. 3 While in some instances of ordering provisional measures this Court has regarded it as essential to single out those persons who are in danger of suffering irreparable harm for the purposes of providing them with protection, 4 in other cases the Court has ordered protection for a plurality of persons that has not be previously named but which is in any case identifiable, discernible, and in a seriously dangerous situation by virtue of 2 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación”. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering clause four; Matter of Penitentiary Center of Aragua “Tocorón Prison”. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, Considering clause six, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding México. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, Considering clause five. 3 Cf. inter alia, Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”) regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 13, 2006, Considering clause sixteen; Matter of Penitentiary Center of Aragua "Tocorón Prison,” supra note 2, Considering clause fourteen, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 2, Considering clause twenty-seven. 4 Cf. Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian-origin in the Dominican Republic regarding Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000, Considering clause eight; Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) regarding Venezuela. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Considering clause six, and Matter of Penitentiary Center of Aragua "Tocorón Prison," supra note 2, Considering clause thirteen. 7