2 Barrios, as well as the measures it is adopting in order to avoid acts that threaten the life or personal integrity of the beneficiaries of [the] provisional measures. […] 2. The Order of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) of December 18, 2009, through which it summoned to a hearing to listen to the updated and detailed information from the Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “Venezuela” or “the State”), as well as the observations of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) and of the representatives of the beneficiaries of the measures (hereinafter “the representatives”) regarding: a) the alleged “extrajudicial execution” of Oscar Barrios and the diligences made by the State in this sense; b) the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court, and c) the implementation of the necessary permanent measures of protection to offer security to the homes of Maritza Barrios, Orismar Carolina Alzul García, and Juan Barrios. 3. The briefs of the representatives of January 21 and 28, 2010, through which they forwarded their observations to the implementation of said provisional measures. 4. The arguments of the parties at the public hearing regarding the present provisional measures held on January 28, 2010, at the seat of the Tribunal.1 Considering that: 1. Venezuela is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since August 9, 1977 and it acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 24, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the Convention demands that for the Court to be able to order provisional measures three conditions must be present: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency,” and iii) that it try to “avoid irreparable damages to the persons.” These three conditions are coexistent and shall be present in all situations in which the intervention of the Tribunal is requested. Likewise, the three conditions described must persist for the Court to be able to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them is no longer valid, the Tribunal shall assess the appropriateness of continuing with the protection ordered.2 3. Based on its jurisdiction, within the framework of provisional measures the Court shall only consider arguments related strictly and directly to the extreme gravity, urgency, and need to avoid irreparable damage to people. As such, in order to decide whether the provisional measures should continue, the Tribunal shall analyze if the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that determined their adoption persists, or if new circumstances equally 1 The following appeared at said hearing, for the Inter-American Commission: Lilly Ching and Silvia Serrano, advisors; for the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures: Viviana Krsticevic and Francisco Quintana, and for the State: German Saltrón Negretti, State Agent; Jesús Arias, Advising Minister and Head of Commercial Matters of the Embassy of Venezuela in Costa Rica and Javier Gómez, Advisor of the Embassy of Venezuela in Costa Rica. 2 Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering clause fourteen; Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 17, 2009, Considering clause ten, and Case of the La Rochela Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of November 19, 2009, Considering clause fourteen.