III PROVISIONAL MEASURES 26. On June 20, 2006, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt provisional measures in favor of the following individuals: María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, her children Fabiola Valeria Torres and Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura, her son-in-law Juan Pablo Caba; Gerardo Colín; Patricio Oliva; Tamara Bolívar; Walter Mansilla; Silvia de los Santos; Verónica Heredia; Miguel Ángel Sánchez; and Viviana and Sonia Hayes. The request was related to petition in proceedings before the Commission. The following day, the President of the Tribunal ordered urgent measures in favor of those individuals and summoned the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the beneficiaries, and the State to a public hearing.4 27. On July 6, 2006, the public hearing was held. That same day, the Court issued an Order that, among other things, ratified the measures ordered by the President. It also broadened the provisional measures to include “the granddaughters of Mrs. María Millacura Llaipén[,] Mrs. Marcela [de Marcos Torres], Alberto and Noelia Hayes, and Luis Alberto Fajardo.” The Court declined to broaden the provisional measures in favor of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres as requested by the representatives, considering that the purpose of these was under the consideration of the Commission during its processing of the petition. 5 28. On February 6, 2008, the Tribunal issued an Order confirming the provisional measures ordered on July 6, 2006, and denying a request brought by the representatives that they be broadened in favor of Cristian Gamín, Diego Álvarez, Luis Alberto Alcaína, Mauricio Agüero, and Iván Eladio Torres. Likewise, it requested the State to submit a report specifying the facts and circumstances that caused the death of Mr. Walter Mansilla, beneficiary of the provisional measures, in light of the fact that the information previously provided by the petitioners and the State “did not allow the Tribunal to determine whether the cause of Mr. Mansilla’s death [was] linked with the facts that gave rise to the adoption of the [...] provisional measures.” 6 29. As of the rendering of this Judgment, the provisional measures ordered remain in force. IV JURISDICTION 30. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case under Article 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as Argentina has been a State Party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, and it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that same date. Likewise, Argentina has been a Party to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture since March 31, 1989, and has been party to the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons since February 28, 1996. 4 Cf. Matter Millacura Llaipén et al. Request of Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of the Human Rights of June 21, 2006, Operative paragraphs one and seven. 5 Cf. Matter Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the InterAmerican Court of the Human Rights of July 6, 2006, considering clause 14 and operative paragraphs one and two. 6 Cf. Matter Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, considering clauses 13, 22, 13, 14, and operative paragraphs one and three. 8