5 effect of the final decision. Provisional measures thus permit that the State in question to be able to comply with the final decision and, where appropriate, proceed to the remedies ordered.4 Regarding the protective nature of provisional measures, this Court has indicated that provisional measures transform into a real legal guarantee of a preventive character because they protect human rights inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable harm to persons.5 7. In the present case, the proposed beneficiaries submitted, together with their request to the Commission for the present provisional measures, an initial petition pursuant to Article 44 of the American Convention. For this reason, the analysis regarding the two dimensions (protective and precautionary) of provisional measures moves forward. The Tribunal recalls that for both the protective dimension and the precautionary one it is necessary that the three requisite elements enshrined in Article 63(2) of the Convention are met in order to the provisional measures requested, namely: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”; and iii) the need to “avoid irreparable damages to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in every instance for which the Tribunal’s intervention is requested.6 8. Regarding the issue of gravity for the purpose adopting provisional measures, the Convention requires that it be “extreme,” that is, that it be in its most intense or elevated degree. The urgent character implies that the risk or threat at issue is imminent, which requires that the response to remedy such a situation also be immediate. Finally, regarding the harm, there must be a reasonable probability that it materialize, and such harm must not be a question of goods or legal interests that may be repairable.7 9. When confronted with a request for provisional measures, the Court may not consider the merits of any argument apart from those strictly related to the extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable harm to persons. Any other matter may only be submitted to the Court for consideration via contentious case proceedings.8 10. In the present matter, according to the Commission, the Court is not called to opine on the compatibility or not of the radio station closures with the provisions of the Convention, the procedure followed for that effect, nor the alleged violations to the rights of the proposed beneficiaries. All these facets could be debated by the petitioners and the State before the Inter-American Commission pursuant to the rules established in the Convention and the Commission’s own Rules of Procedure in the event that the initial petition were to be declared admissible. This Tribunal’s only task with respect to the 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause fourteen; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al., supra note 3, Considering clause five; and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al., supra note 3, Considering clause three. 5 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (“La Nación” Newspaper), supra note 3, Considering clause four; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al., supra note 3, Considering clause five; and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al., supra note 3, Considering clause three. 6 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 4, Considering clause fourteen; Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 2, Considering clause ten; and Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering clause two. 7 Cf. Matters of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare Prison), the Penitentiary Center of the Central-Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and El Rodeo I and el Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause three. 8 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering clause six; Matter of Adrián Meléndez Quijano et al. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2010, Considering clause three; and Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al., supra note 6, Considering clause three.