submit information in this regard. Through a note from the Secretariat dated April 18, 2011 the State was given until the 29th of that same month and year to submit complete information on the alleged death of Mr. Caba. The note confirmed that the brief presented by the representatives on April 15, 2011, did not refer to all of the beneficiaries of these measures (supra Having Seen 3). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 5, 1984, and that pursuant to Article 62 thereof, it recognized the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court in the same ratification document. 2. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that for the Court to order the adoption of provisional measures, three conditions must be met: 1) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”, and iii) that they be “necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in all situations for which the Court’s intervention is requested. In addition, the three conditions described must persist for the Court to maintain the ordered protection. If one of them is no longer valid, the Court shall reevaluate the continued with the ordered protection.1 3. Based on its authority to determine its own competence, in its settled case law the Court has interpreted Article 63(2) of the American Convention to mean that it can order provisional measures at any stage of the proceedings. This has allowed the Tribunal to order this type of measure or to order that such measures remain in force even when it has already issued a judgment on the merits and ordered the corresponding reparations, and when the Court is monitoring compliance of those reparations, given that the case remains before the Tribunal until the State complies fully with the ruling. The exercise of this competence of the Court is concordant with the precautionary and protective nature of provisional measures2, something that has allowed the Tribunal to guarantee the protection of the most fundamental of human rights, including the rights to life, personal integrity, and personal liberty. Were it not to order this type of safeguard while supervising compliance with a judgment on the merits and reparations pursuant to the full extent of the provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention, the Court would be failing to comply with its mandate to “avoid irreparable damage" to persons. 4. Based on its jurisdiction, and within the framework of provisional measures, the Court shall only consider those claims that are strictly and directly related to extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Consequently, in order to decide whether to maintain the provisional measures in 1 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering 14, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of October 10, 2011, Considering 3. 2 In International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not solely precautionary, in the sense that they preserve the legal situation. Rather they are fundamentally tutelary, in that they protect human rights by seeking to prevent irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applicable as long as they meet the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to persons. In this way, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventative nature. Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación.” Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica.Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, Considering 4; and Matter of the Unidad de Internación Socioeducativa. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of September 1, 2011, Considering 4. 3