to persons.2 Thus, Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that, for the Court to order provisional measures, three conditions must concur: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) the need to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is sought, and they must persist in order for the Court to maintain the order for protection, and if one of them is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered.3 4. Based on its competence, in the context of provisional measures, the Court must only consider those arguments related strictly and directly to the extreme gravity, urgency, and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Thus, in order to decide whether to maintain the provisional measures in force, the Court must analyze whether the situation that led to their adoption persists, or whether equally grave and urgent new circumstances require maintaining them. Any other matter may only be brought before the Court by means of the corresponding contentious cases.4 a) Positions at the public hearing 5. The Court notes that, at the public hearing held on June 28, 2011, the State indicated that this matter is especially complex for the following reasons: the targeted violence; the change in residence of the beneficiaries, which has made it difficult to implement the measures, and the representatives have held positions that make it difficult to reach the agreements required to achieve a satisfactory solution. The State added that: (a) it had convened six working meetings; (b) it had made available to the beneficiaries: mobile phones with US$100 of airtime, and social programs through the Development Secretariat; (c) it had issued 33 birth certificates and passports exempting the payment of fees, and (d) it had taken 321 measures in the investigations (including statements, inspections, requests for collaboration, chain of custody, and appraisals) in order to comply with the measures ordered. 6. For their part, at the said hearing, the representatives called attention to the failure to adopt the necessary measures, because the meetings that had been held were overdue, since they were held nine months after the Order on provisional measures; insufficient, because at the time of the hearing only three meetings had been held and useless, because they have not served to make progress on specific measures. They underscored their concern because 18 months after the adoption of the first measures, there was not a single proposal for protection even though the risk had increased; they also indicated that the authorities faced constraints in conducting the investigations into the disappearances. 7. The Inter-American Commission agreed with the representatives and emphasized the lack of specific results in the investigation of the telephone call for help made by Nitza Paola on February 3, 2010, and of the telephone calls with death threats made to Jose Ángel Alvadrado’s father. Additionally, it referred to the problems of coordination between the different authorities that were conducting the investigations. Lastly, regarding the 2 Case of the “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luís Galdámez Álvarez et al., supra note 1, third considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luís Galdámez Álvarez et al., supra note 1, third considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luís Galdámez Álvarez et al., supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph. 3