6 avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures of protection become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.5 7. That due to its competence, under the framework of provisional measures, in deciding whether to maintain the provisional measures in force, the Tribunal should analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or whether new circumstances, also extremely grave and urgent, warrant keeping them in force. * * * 8. That the Court had ordered the present provisional measures “so as not to hinder the processing of [the beneficiaries’] cases before the Inter-American system” for the protection of human rights (supra Having Seen paras. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12). 9. That in its most recent jurisprudence, and in the case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados in particular, the Court has considered that when the purpose of provisional measures is to “[avoid] hinder[ing] the processing of […] cases before the Inter-American system” for the protection of human rights,6 such purpose is met when the Tribunal has analyzed the cases pursuant to its contentious jurisdiction.7 This is consistent with the precautionary nature of provisional measures (supra Considering para. 6). Consequently, in the Boyce et al. case the Court lifted the provisional measures ordered on behalf of the victims and considered “that the State’s obligations within the framework of th[o]se provisional measures [were] 8 superseded by those […] ordered in the […] Judgment as of the date of its notification.” 10. That the Court heard the merits of the cases submitted by thirty-two of the beneficiaries of the present provisional measures and declared them to be victims, as stated in the Judgment issued by this Tribunal on June 21, 2002, in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago (supra Having Seen para. 13). However, given that one of these thirty-two beneficiaries, Joey Ramiah, was executed by the State on June 4, 1999 (supra Having Seen para. 8), the present provisional measures are currently in force in favor of only the remaining thirty-one. 11. That consistent with the Court’s recent jurisprudence, the Tribunal considers that the purpose of the provisional measures ordered on behalf of the beneficiaries who were also 5 Cf. The “La Nación” Case. Provisional measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering clause four; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Provisional measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering clause forty-five; and Case of López Álvarez et al. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, Considering clause three. 6 Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 129. 7 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 196; Case of Boyce et al., supra note 6, para. 129; and Case of RaxcacóReyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, Operative para. 15. 8 Case of Boyce et al., supra note 6, para. 129.