to persons are met. Thus, provisional measures are transformed in a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.4 5. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that three conditions be present in order for the Court to grant provisional measures: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”; and, iii) “that they be necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in all situations where the Tribunal’s intervention is requested. Likewise, these three conditions must persist in order for the Court to maintain provisional measures in place. If one such condition ceases to remain in effect, it falls to the Court to assess the pertinence of continuing with the protection ordered.5 6. When presented with a Request for Provisional Measures, the Court may not consider the merits of any argument not strictly related to the elements of extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable harm to persons. Any other matter may only be submitted for the Court’s consideration by way of contentious case proceedings. Thus, in order to decide whether to maintain provisional measures in place, the Tribunal must analyze the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency which gave rise to their adoption, or whether new circumstances equally serious and urgent merit their continuance. Any other matter may only be submitted for the Court’s consideration by way of contentious case proceedings.6 a) Implementation of provisional measures 7. that: Regarding the implementation of provisional measures, the State reported a) Together with various federal and Espírito Santo state institutions, it formalized the “Pact for the Improvement of Socio-Educational Assistance in the State of Espírito Santo and Compliance with the Provisional Measures Issued by the Inter-American Court until September 30, 2011,7 which is being 4 Cf. Case of “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering clause four; Matter of Pueblo Indígena Kankuamo. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 7, 2011, Considering clause five; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, Considering clause four. 5 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause fourteen; Matter of the Forensic Anthropological Foundation of Guatemala. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 22, 2011, Considering clause two; and Matter of Various Venezuelan Prisons, supra note 3, Considering clause four. 6 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering clause six; Matter of the Indigenous Community of Kankuamo, supra note 4, Considering clause five; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 4, Considering clause four. 7 The Pact’s signatory entities are: the Human Rights Secretariat of the President of the Republic; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Institute of Socio-Educational Assistance for the State of Espírito Santo; the State Secretariat of Justice; the State Secretariat of Welfare and Human Rights; the Espírito Santo State Judiciary; the Espírito Santo State Attorney General; and the Espírito Santo Public Ombudsman. 3