4 preventive, nature of said measures–2 nor is it limited by the type of rights that are at stake.3 The Court’s jurisdiction is, however, necessarily dependent on the existence of a situation of gravity and urgency that creates a risk of irreparable damage to human rights. 5. That, considering its jurisdiction, when ruling on provisional measures the Court is to consider only arguments which relate strictly and directly to the extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Accordingly, in deciding whether to maintain provisional measures in force, the Court is required to analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption in the first place still exists, or whether there are new circumstances that are equally grave and urgent which require that the measures remain in full force and effect. Any other matter may only be brought before the Court via the relevant contentious proceedings.4 * * * 6. That, in its Order of July 28, 2006, the President of the Court stated that “the background information provided by the Commission in this [matter] show[ed], prima facie, that […] a situation of extreme gravity and urgency prevail[ed] at the Araraquara Penitentiary, such that the inmates’ life and integrity were vulnerable and at serious risk,” which caused him to order that their life and personal integrity be urgently protected.5 Given that the above-described situation persisted, through the order of September 30, 2006 the Court insisted on its order that the State adopt measures for the protection of the beneficiaries (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). 7. That the events that have taken place since the issue of the Order of the President of the Court in this matter on July 28, 2006 warrant an analysis of the current situation of the beneficiaries and the issue of this Order. 2 Cf. Matter of the Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, seventh to ninth considering clauses; and Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008, fourth considering clause. 3 Cf. Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, first and second operative paragraphs; and Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, supra note 2, fourth considering clause. 4 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 20, 1998, sixth considering clause; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, supra note 2, fifth considering clause; and Matter of the Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra nota 2, tenth considering clause. 5 Cf. Matter of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins de Oliveira” Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Decision of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 28, 2006, thirteenth considering clause.