-3- 3. That, in relation to this matter, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides 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. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 4. That provisional measures are of an exceptional nature, that they are granted on the basis of the needs of protection and that, once ordered, they must be maintained so long as the Court considers that there continue to exist the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by said measures. 5. That the Court, in its Order of February 7, 2006, decided, inter alia, to call upon the State to maintain, for three months as of the notification of the Order, such measures as might be necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz and that, upon lapse of said period of time, it would assess the need for said measures to remain in force (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). To adopt this decision the Tribunal took into account the ground that the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission on July 22, 2005, with respect to the risk faced by Mr. Rivera-Paz, was based on his "decisive participation" as counsel for Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza in the criminal proceedings pending before the Huancayo Court of Justice, as well as on "the fact that they were both in daily and permanent contact". 6. That the aforementioned three-month term lapsed on May 22, 2006 and, to this day, no evidence has been tendered before the Tribunal regarding the need to maintain the protection ordered by the Court in favor of Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz. Quite to the contrary, on May 9, 2006, Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza forwarded a copy of a duly signed power-of-attorney granted in favor of Messrs. Raúl Ángel Ramos de la Torre and Cesar Manuel Saldaña-Ramírez to act as his attorneys before the Court (supra Having Seen clause No. 7). Likewise, Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz informed the Court that he was no longer counsel for Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza and pointed out that the measures were granted in his favor "in his capacity as defense counsel for Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza", by reason of which "the continuation of said measures is subject to the decision of the Inter-American Court". On the other hand, the State asserted that "it is awaiting the assessment and final decision [...] regarding [their] effectiveness" and that "to date, [Mr. Rivera-Paz] is no longer legal counsel for nor representative of Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza" (supra Having Seen clause No. 8). 7. That it is evident from the information submitted by the Commission, Mr. Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza, Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz and the State that Mr. Rivera-Paz is not in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, nor is he at risk of suffering irreparable damage to his rights, so that this Tribunal need not continue to order measures of protection in his favor.