8. The briefs of November 20 and December 18, 2009, January 22, March 16 and 18, July 19, August 31, and December 1, 2010, and March 22, June 23, July 4 and 6, 2011 and their attachments, among others, whereby the representatives reported on alleged threats, harassment, and violence against the beneficiaries of the provisional measures. 9. The brief of May 28, 2010, whereby the Commission reported an incident to the detriment of Ana Luz Prisciliano Fernández. 10. The public hearing on these provisional measures held on June 28, 2011, during the ninety-first regular period of sessions of the Inter-American Court in San José, Costa Rica. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981 and, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” This provision is in turn regulated by Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.1 3. Based on its authority to determine its own competence, in its consistent 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 Court to order this type of measure or to order that such measures remain in effect 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 under the Court’s jurisdiction until the State fully complies with the ruling. The Court’s exercise of this competence is consistent with the precautionary and protective nature of provisional measures, 2 and this has allowed the Court to guarantee the protection of the most fundamental human rights, including the right to life and personal integrity and liberty. If the Court did not order this type of safeguard while monitoring compliance with a judgment on the merits and reparations in accordance with 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. Pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention, the State’s adoption of the provisional measures ordered by the Court is mandatory, given that the basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, has indicated that States 1 Rules of Procedure passed by the Court in its eighty-fifth regular period of sessions, held on November 16-28, 2009. 2 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, considering paragraph 3. 2