2 Republic of Brazil (hereinafter, "the State" or "Brazil") reported on the steps taken pursuant to the provisional measures ordered by the Court in this matter. 3. The submissions made between December 20, 2005 and April 15, 2008, through which the beneficiaries’ representatives (hereinafter, “the Representatives”) stated their comments on the State's reports and filed additional writings in which they addressed emergency situations in the prison, such as mutinies and dead inmates. 4. The submissions made between January 17, 2006 and November 12, 2007, through which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or "the Inter-American Commission") stated its comments on the information provided by the State and the representatives. CONSIDERING: 1. That Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or "the Convention") since September 25, 1992 and, under Article 62 thereof, it acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on December 10, 1998. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides 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 it, adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent at the Commission’s request. 3. In this regard, Article 25 of the Rules provides that: 1. At any stage of the proceeding 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 any provisional measures it considers appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With regard to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 4. That under the American Convention the Court may order a State to adopt provisional measures in the event of an extremely serious and urgent situation, which poses a risk of irreparable harm to persons. The Court’s scope of jurisdiction in connection with provisional measures is not necessarily limited by the existence of a case being heard by the Inter-American Commission involving measures, inasmuch as, under certain circumstances, the Tribunal has recognized not only the preventive but also the protective nature of such measures,1 nor is it limited by the type of rights 1 Cf. Matter of 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 08, 2008, Considering clauses N. 7–9.