3 7. The communication of the State of November 11, 2008, in which it submitted its “opinion regarding the continuation of the [p]rovisional [m]easures mandated in [the Court’s] Orders of May 7, 2004, September 22, 2006, [and May 3, 2008]” in favor of Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and his family, and stated that “lifting [the measures] would be convenient […], as no evidence has been found on the existence of threats against their physical integrity or material goods.” Considering: 1. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and that it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. 3. That, on the subject, Article 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that: 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. […] 3. In contentious cases already submitted to the Court, the victims or alleged victims, their next of kin, or their duly accredited representatives, may present a request for provisional measures directly to the Court. […] 4. That due to its competence, under the framework of provisional measures, the Court should consider only those arguments that relate strictly and directly to the requisites of extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity of avoiding irreparable damage to persons. It is in this manner that, 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. All other issues may be brought to the Court’s attention solely through the procedure for contentious cases.1 1 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering clause six; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2008, Considering clause four; and Matter of the persons imprisoned in the “Dr.