13. Taking into account the information set out above, the Court will now analyze the requirements established in Article 63 of the Convention; in other words, the extreme gravity, urgency and possible irreparable damage. First, the Court recalls that the adoption of urgent or provisional measures does not presuppose or entail an eventual decision on the merits of the matter if the case should be submitted to the Court’s consideration, nor does it prejudge the State’s responsibility for the facts denounced. 8 14. Regarding the requirement of extreme gravity, the Court observes that the medical procedure that interrupted the pregnancy of Ms. B. was performed on June 3, 2013 (supra considering paragraph 6.c). In this regard, the Court finds it relevant to emphasize that it assesses positively the satisfactory and prompt efforts of the State authorities to comply with the provisional measures that were ordered in favor of Ms. B. In addition, the Court observes that, following the caesarean section, Ms. B. appears to be in a stable condition (supra considering paragraph 6.e). Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the possible risks to the life and persons integrity that could have arisen from the continuation of the said pregnancy, and based on which the provisional measures in this matter were adopted, no longer subsist. The Court observes that the representatives mentioned that they had information concerning possible health problems of Ms. B. that continued following the caesarean section. Nevertheless, the representatives failed to present any medical documentation to substantiate this affirmation and merely asked that the State make an assessment to determine the current situation of the health of Ms. B. Therefore, the Court does not have sufficient information to allow it to determine that Ms. B. is currently in a situation of extreme gravity; particularly if it is considered that the factual situation that gave rise to these provisional measures no longer exists. Since one of the requirements indicated in Article 63 of the Convention is no longer met, the Court finds it necessary to lift the provisional measures adopted in her favor. 15. Despite the foregoing, the Court recalls that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, under any circumstances. Moreover, provisional measures are exceptional in nature and complementary to this general obligation of the States. Thus, the presumptions for the Court to lift provisional measure cannot signify that the State is relieved of its treaty-based obligations of protection. Therefore, the Court emphasizes that, irrespective of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is obliged to ensure the rights of persons in a situation of risk. 9 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority under Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 27 of its Rules of Procedure, 8 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 13, 1998, considering paragraph 6, and Matter of B. Provisional measures with regard to El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 29, 2013, considering paragraph 11. 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, considering paragraph 3, and Matter of Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, considering paragraph 104. 5