3 Considering that: 1. Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since December 28, 1977, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. 2. According to article 63(2) of the Convention, three conditions must be met in order for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, namely: i) “extreme gravity;” ii) "urgency” and iii) when necessary to avoid “irreparable damage to people.” These three conditions must coexist and must be present in every situation where the intervention of the Tribunal is required2 and, by the same token the conditions must persist in order for the Court to maintain the protection so ordered. 3. In the scope of provisional measures, the Court must only consider those arguments strictly and directly related to said conditions. Therefore, in order to decide whether it keeps the provisional measures in force, the Tribunal must analyze if the situation of extreme gravity and urgency which led to their adoption still persists, or whether new equally serious and urgent circumstances deserve their maintenance.3 All other issues may be brought to the Court’s attention solely through the procedure for contentious cases.4 4. The case that gave rise to these provisional measures has not been brought to the Court’s attention as to the merits; instead, the measures have been ordered in the context of a case that is being processed, at the merits stage, before the InterAmerican Commission. Therefore, the maintenance of the provisional measures does not imply an eventual decision on the merits of the existing controversy between the petitioners and the State. By keeping the provisional measures in force, the Court is merely ensuring that it can exercise its mandate pursuant to the Convention.5 5. In relation to the measures to effectively protect and void irreparable damage to the life, physical integrity and security of the members of the Sarayaku People, in order to form to carry out their activities and make use of the existing natural resources, in the recent public hearing, the State informed that, by the end of August 2009, it was delivered to the people, who the Community itself identified as 2 See Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering Clause fourteen. Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of November 17, 2009; Considering clause ten. Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2009, Considering Clause ten. 3 See Carpio Nicolle, supra note 2; considering clause fifteen; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2009; considering clause four; Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”); Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare Prison); Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) and El Rodeo I and El rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering Clause five. 4 See Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering clause six; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, supra note 3, Considering clause four and matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center “”La Pica”) et al, supra note 3, Considering clause five. 5 See Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 13, 1998, Considering clause six; Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 2, Considering clause seventeen and Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 2, Considering clause eighteen.