c) “This request for provisional measures does not require the Inter-American Court to rule on whether or not the said penalization is compatible with the American Convention.” d) “In the State of El Salvador, the law that has prevented the access of B. to the treatment she needs seeks to protect the life of the fetus, even in exceptional circumstances such as those of this case. On the one hand, the life of the fetus that is the object of protection is not viable outside the womb, a situation that is consistent with the scientific evidence in this regard and which has not been disputed by the State or by the report of the Institute of Forensic Medicine. Meanwhile, the mother is in a situation of grave risk for her life, personal integrity, and health that can be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy.” e) “The State has been unable to provide an immediate and effective response to ensure this access without fear of reprisals. Thus, in this request the Commission considers it essential to emphasize the need for the InterAmerican Court to refer to this key obstacle, indicating clearly that, in compliance with the provisional measures, no one may be subjected to the exercise of the State’s punitive power.” 5. The note of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of May 28, 2013, which, upon the instruction of the Inter-American Court in plenary, requested that the State, within a non-extendible period of 24 hours, take the necessary measures for the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to provide information on its final decision concerning the amparo filed in favor of “B.” In addition, information was requested on the reasons why, to date, the Constitutional Chamber has not issued a final decision on the said amparo. 6. The brief of May 29, 2013, in which the State answered the request made by the Inter-American Court, attached the decision of the Constitutional Chamber of May 28, 2013, and indicated that it “provides this for your information, to the pertinent legal effect.” CONSIDERING THAT: 1. El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates 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.” 3. According to Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: 2 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 2 2009. Rules of Procedure adopted by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 4