5 instructions of the President of the Court, the State and the Inter-American Commission were requested to present, no later than October 23, 2009, the observations they deem relevant to the arguments and appendices forwarded by the representatives regarding the maintenance and expansion of the provisional measures in the instant four matters (supra Having Seen clause 12). 14. The briefs of October 19 and 30, 2009 by which the Inter-American Commission and the State submitted, respectively, their observations to the arguments presented by the representatives regarding the maintenance and expansion of the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal in these four matters of reference (supra Having Seen clause 12). Considering: 1. That Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention”) since August 9, 1977, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. That Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that “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”. 3. That this Tribunal recalls that the American Convention provides for the adoption of provisional measures when the case involves “extreme” gravity, that is, an intense or high level of gravity. The urgency implies that the risk or threat must be imminent, which also presupposes that the response to remedy it must be immediate. Finally, as to the damage, there must exist a reasonable probability that the damage is caused and it must not involve legally protected interest capable of being repaired. 4. That, upon ordering the protective measures, the Tribunal does not need, in principle, evidence of the facts that, prima facie, appear to meet the requirements of Article 63. However, for the protective measures to be maintained, the Court has to assess the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage that gave rise to the measures,2 on the basis of information of evidentiary value.3 5. That it is essential that the provisional measures are maintained in full force and affect until the Court orders their discontinuance and serves notice thereof upon the State.4 It is in this manner that, in deciding whether to maintain the provisional measures in force, the Tribunal must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or whether new circumstances, also extremely grave and urgent, 2 Cf. Matter of Pueblo Indígena Kankuamo. Provisional Measures Regarding Colombia Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, considering clause seven. Case of A.J. et al. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009; Considering Clause eighteen; and Matter of Pérez Torres et al (Cotton Field). Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering Clause twenty. 3 Cf. Matter of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009; considering clause fifteen; Matter of A.J. et al, supra note 2; considering clause eighteen; and Matter of Perez Torres et al (Cotton Field), supra note 2, considering clause twenty. 4 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 1, 2005; Considering Clause ten; Case of Gutierrez Soler. Provisional Measures Regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering Clause six. Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering Clause forty-six.