7 was pointed out that “although the State has adopted protection measures in favor of the beneficiaries [of the provisional measures], in view of the information furnished by the latter and even by the State itself regarding the implementation of the provisional measures, it is evident that the protection granted is not adequate enough to safeguard their lives and personal integrity.” The Commission added that “it is expected that the Court will call a public hearing on this matter: it should be pointed out that the call to public hearing by the Commission, or in the domestic jurisdiction, has generally coincided with an intensification of the acts against the beneficiaries […].” Moreover, the Commission referred to the design and implementation of the protection measures that the State must adopt, inter alia, that the persons assigned to give protection to the beneficiaries should be adequately trained and have the necessary equipment to repel a possible attack and that a permanent and special protection must be provided at the place of residence of the beneficiaries, as well as at the premises of IDHUCA. 6. to: The request of the Commission to the Court so that the latter ask the State a) […] adopt forthwith all the measures necessary to guarantee the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries in accordance with the requisites and modalities described in this request […]. b) […] carry out serious, complete and speedy investigations into the intimidating actions, harassment and attacks perpetrated against the beneficiaries; to identify the persons liable therefor and impose the corresponding punishments as deterrent mechanism to avoid the repetition of threats or the happening of irreparable damage to the beneficiaries; c) […] inform forthwith on the progress and outcome of the investigations made to identify and punish the persons liable for the acts that originated this request; and d) […] allow the beneficiaries to participate in the design and implementation of the measures. CONSIDERING: 1. That El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978 and, pursuant to Article 62 of said Convention, it recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention provides that [i]n cases of the utmost seriousness and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court, in the cases tried by it, may order the provisional measures it may deem convenient. In cases that have not been yet submitted to its jurisdiction, the Court shall be able to act upon the Commission´s request. 3. That regarding this issue, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure provides as follows: 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.