That it order that the provisional measures called for Digna Ochoa et al. be lifted, which shall not prevent national human rights organizations from taking action should the acts of harassment and threat recur, or the investigations from continuing to uncover additional evidence. 3. The State’s August 13, 2001 report, wherein it repeated what it had asked in its previous report, which is that the provisional measures be lifted. It also stated the following: 4.- The Government of Mexico notes to this […] Court that the purpose of provisional measures is to avoid irreparable harm to persons. They are temporary in nature as they are intended to deal with situations of extreme urgency. In the case before us, the measures taken by the national institutions have fulfilled the primary objective of the Court-ordered measures. In other words, it is an abuse of provisional measures to use them as a de facto substitute for prosecuting a case that should have sufficient merit to be heard before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 4. The August 22, 2001 comments from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”), wherein it stated that: it considers that the provisional measures ordered […] have accomplished their purpose, which was to protect the life and personal integrity of Digna Ochoa y Plácido and the others named in the Order of November 17, 1999. In its note the Commission added the following: [b]ased on available information, particularly the petitioners’ note of August 21, 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights] has no objection to the lifting of the present provisional measures. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Inter.-American Commission will continue to process the respective petition in accordance with the American Convention, its Regulations and applicable provisions and, if necessary, will again turn to this […] Court seeking provisional measures. CONSIDERING: 1. That Mexico became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) on April 3, 1982, and accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction on December 16, 1998; 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that in cases “of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court shall, in matters the Court already has under consideration, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent; 3. That provisional measures are exceptional in nature, ordered because of the need to protect; once ordered, they are to be maintained so long as the basic conditions mentioned in the preceding paragraph are present, NOW THEREFORE: