4. To request the State to present any observations it deems pertinent on the information required from the Inter-American Commission in the preceding operative paragraph, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present any observations it deems pertinent on the information required from the State in the preceding operative paragraph. The said observations must be presented within two week of receiving the said information. 6. The briefs of December 7, 2012, and January 15 and 25, 2013, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) forwarded, inter alia, the information requested by the acting President in his Order of December 6, 2012, as well as its observations on the respective information provided by the State. 7. The briefs of January 16 and 31, 2013, in which the State presented the information requested by the acting President in his Order of December 6, 2012, as well as its observations on the corresponding information of the Inter-American Commission. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on July 28, 1978, and, in accordance with its Article 62, accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that in “cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters not yet submitted to its consideration, at the request of the Commission, order the provisional measures that it deems pertinent. This provision is, in turn, regulated in Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 3. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that, for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, three conditions must concur: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency” and (iii) that the purpose is to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court is asked to intervene. In the same way, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered.1 4. The Court recalls that these provisional measures were granted for the first time on May 28, 2010, at the request of the Inter-American Commission in the context of petition P-366-09,2 in view of the prima facie danger of the risk inherent in 1 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of December 6, 2012, third considering paragraph. 2 The petition was declared admissible on November 1, 2010, by Report No. 151/10 and with regard to Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Personal Integrity), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and y 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of this instrument. Cf. Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of March 24, 2010, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, fifth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of November 26, 2010, fourth considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of March 4, 2011, eighth and ninth considering paragraphs; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, eleventh considering paragraph; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the 2