[…] AND DECIDE[D]: 1. To require the State to forward the information requested by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (supra seventh considering paragraph), by May 25, 2012, at the latest. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on July 28, 1978, and, in accordance with its Article 62, accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that in “cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters not yet submitted to its consideration, at the request of the Commission, order the provisional measures that it deems pertinent. This provision is, in turn, regulated in Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 3. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that, for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, three conditions must concur: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency” and (iii) that the purpose is to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court is asked to intervene. In the same way, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 1 4. The Court has indicated that provisional measures have two aspects: one preventive and the other protective. 2 The preventive aspect of provisional measures is related to the framework of international litigations. In this regard, these measures are designed to preserve the rights that are possibly at risk until the dispute has been decided. Their object and purpose are to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on merits and, in this way, avoid harm to the rights in dispute, a situation that could neutralize the practical effects of the final decision or render them useless. Thus, provisional measures permit the State concerned to comply with the final decision and, as appropriate, proceed to make the reparations ordered. 3 Regarding the protective aspect of provisional measures, this Court has indicated that provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature because they protect human rights to the extent that they seek to avoid irreparable harm to persons. 4 1 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of González Medina and family. Provisional measures with regard to Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of June 21, 2012, second considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper). Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Martínez Martínez et al. Request for provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of March 1, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Matter of El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Capital Detention Center. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Martínez Martínez et al., supra note 2, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper). supra note 4, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Martínez Martínez et al., supra note 2, fourth considering paragraph. 3