21. The brief of June 24, 2011, in which the Commission forwarded additional information. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, and, pursuant to Article 63 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in the act of ratification. 2. Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. In this regard, the pertinent part of Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”) establishes 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. The Commission requested the “re-opening” of the provisional measures that the Court had ordered in the matter of the Mendoza Prisons as of November 22, 2004, which were in force until December 15, 2010, the date of notification of the order of November 26, 2010. In order to determine the admissibility of this request, the Court will examine the information and justification presented by the Commission, together with its observations and those of the State in this regard. A. Information presented by the Commission and the State a) Regarding the alleged acts of torture or violence 5. The Commission has presented information to the Court regarding alleged acts that could be classified as torture against inmates of the San Felipe Unit, which is part of the Mendoza prison system. It indicated that, during the first half of January 2011, a mobile telephone owned by a prison official was found outside the Boulogne Sur Mer Prison Unit,6 with several videos and photographs that show acts of torture inflicted on inmates of the San Felipe Prison Unit by members of the prison staff, as well as other “violent and irresponsible [types of conduct] among the members of the prison staff and 6 The Commission indicated that “several photographs have been taken with the same device, which have been named “Me” and allow it to be inferred that this person is the owner of the mobile telephone in question and the person who made the said videos.” 4