4 CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") since September 5, 1984, and in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court in the same ratification act. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention holds that, “In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court shall be able to order the provisional measures it considers pertinent in matters that have not yet been submitted to it and at the request of the Commission. This provision is regulated by Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.10 3. These provisional measures were initially ordered through an Order dated November 22, 2004, in which the Court found that “from the background presented by the Commission on this matter, as well as from the State’s statements, it can be deduced prima facie that […] a situation of extreme gravity and urgency prevail[ed] in [the Mendoza provincial penitentiary and Gustavo André Unit in Lavalle] such that the lives and integrity of the individuals deprived of liberty in [those facilities] and of the individuals found within them were at grave risk and vulnerable.” Later, that judgment was reiterated by the Court in rulings dated June 18, 2005, March 30, 2006, and November 27, 2007, which maintain the order for provisional measures upon considering that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency persisted. In addition, a request by the representatives for the provisional measures to be broadened to the benefit of individuals imprisoned in another penitentiary (Penitentiary Complex III “Almafuerte” in Cacheuta) was dismissed (supra Having Seen 7). Also, case No. 12.532, "Inmates of the Mendoza Penitentiary," is being processed in the merits stage before the Inter-American Commission. In the context of that case, the petitioners and the State have reached a friendly settlement agreement that is pending approval of the corresponding proceeding on the part of the Commission (infra Considering 10). In its latest reports submitted during the year 2010, the State has asked that the provisional measures be lifted. 4. Given the period during which these provisional measures are in force, the results of the in situ visit to the penitentiaries carried out by a delegation of the Commission in April of 2009 and its corresponding report (supra Having Seen 13), and the aforementioned request for the measures to be lifted, it is necessary to carry out an examination of the progress made in the implementation of the provisional measures before weighing the need to maintain them, as follows: i) information beyond the purpose of the provisional measures; ii) analysis on the implementation of the provisional measures; and iii) the request that the measures be lifted. i) Information submitted that is beyond the purpose of the provisional measures 10 Rules of Procedure passed in the LXXXV Regular Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 28, 2009.