4 9. The two briefs of July 3, 2009 and the brief of July 6, 2009, as well as their appendixes, through which the representatives annexed newspapers clippings and other documents that, at their judgment, confirm: i) the urgency and gravity of the situation with the imminent beginning of the activities of the Work Group; ii) the concern and manifestations of several groups of the Brazilian society, among others, the intervention of the Federal Public Ministry in the frame of Act. No. 82.00.24682-5, in regard to the way of conducting the activities set in Order 567/MD, and iii) that the coordination of work is still in hands of the Brazilian Army, without the participation of the Public Ministry or the competent judicial authorities. Likewise, the representatives requested the Court to clarify to the State that the granting of the requested extension (supra Having Seen 8) meant the suspension of the beginning of the activities of the Work Group until the Court pronounces about this request for provisional measures. 10. The brief of July 7, 2009, through which the State sent their observations to the request for provisional measures. 11. The brief of July 20, 2009, through which the Inter-American Court requested the State to submit complementary information to the sent observations (supra Having Seen 10), no later than July 13, 2009, about: a) the members and work of the commission for civilian supervision of the Work Group; b) the mechanisms and modes of supervision of the activities of the Work Group, particularly of the field work and physical accompaniment to said group; and c) all other information related to the safe keeping and conservation by the State of evidence that, eventually, during the process of location and excavation, will be found in relation to this case. 12. The brief of July 13, 2009 and it appendix, through which the State submitted the complementary information in response to what was requested by the Court. CONSIDERING: 1. That Brazil is a State Party to the Convention since September 25, 1992, and that according to Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the competence of the Court on December 10, 1998. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention sets that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the persons, the Court, in the matters that is acknowledging, may take the provisional measures that considers pertinent […]”. 3. That in terms of Article 26 of the Rules of Procedures of the Court: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, Order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. […] 3. In contentious cases already submitted to the Court, the victims or alleged victims or their duly accredited representatives, may present a request for provisional measures in relation to the cases directly to the Court.