7 B) Request to Adopt Provisional Measures 17. Article 63(2) of the Convention states that, “[i]n extremely serious and urgent cases, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court can, in relation to the matters under consideration, “adopt the provisional measures that it deems necessary.” 18. Mr. Fernández Saré based his request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen 10), on the fact that the victims were dismissed over 18 years ago, the proceedings have lasted over twelve years, some workers have died, and the great majority have delicate states of health and due to a lack of economic resources cannot take care of their conditions. 19. The common interveners did not submit observations regarding this request for provisional measures. 20. The Inter-American Commission did not refer specifically to the request for provisional measures and referred to its observations regarding compliance with the Judgment. 21. The State requested the Court to “declare the request filed to adopt provisional measures inadmissible,” considering “the situation is not serious or urgent enough to cause irreparable damages to the [group] of ex-workers of the Congress of the Republic” that presented it. The State added that the aforementioned request for provisional measures refers to “the provision of comprehensive medical care through the Social Security called ‘ESSALUD,’ to each of the victims and their closest next of kin […] until the case is resolved in a definite manner[,]an issue which is not addressed” in the operative paragraphs of the Judgment. It indicated that in the request for provisional measures no “detailed mention is made of the exact situation of the 257 and/or 36 victims that signed [it]” and the existence of the motives to order the provisional measures stipulated in Article 63(2) of the Convention has not been proven. The State highlighted that the measures are requested for a group of persons, and not all of the 257 workers have provided necessary up-to-date information about their situation, which was reported by the Human Resources office of the Congress of the Republic, specifying that currently 24 of the 257 victims work in the Congress of the Republic; and, of the remaining 233, 45 are independent workers, 29 are working for various State institutions, 103 are unemployed, 3 have died, 2 persons are overseas, and there are 2 dismissals. Such information would have allowed the specific situation of 208 victims to be determined and identified in the present case. 22. The Court understands the serious problems that could have affected the victims as a consequence of the facts of the present case and, also, because of the delay in the compliance by the State with the obligations set forth in the Judgment. However, the object of the request is partially linked with the obligation imposed upon the State in operative paragraph four of the Judgment,10 since job restitution could be one of the possible legal consequences of the irregular dismissal of some of the workers, which is to be determined in domestic jurisdiction (supra Considering Clause 8). Thus, Article 63(2) of the Convention is not applicable. However, and considering the State has already declared that the victims were irregularly and unjustifiably dismissed from their jobs, it can be inferred that in many cases they suffered economic damages and that they were excluded from certain Social Security plans. Therefore, the Tribunal deems that in this case, it is not necessary to accept the request for provisional measures to provide health services for the victims, without prejudice to the measures that the State could promptly adopt, considering the respective legal and constitutional provisions, and in compliance with the general obligations set forth in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to guarantee that the victims of the present case have access to health services, through state programs or institutions, at least until their 10 In a similar sense, see Raxcaco Reyes et al. Request to Extend Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 2, 2007, Considering Clause 21. See also De la Cruz Florez, Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause 77.