6 does not have that information in its database. Later, the telephone company presented information on the “telephone behavior” of the mentioned line, “information [that] is being processed;” ii) Attorney General of the Republic: the FEVIMTRA forwarded several official letters to state dependencies, requesting that they inform if they have any background regarding the alleged disappearance and requested from the Secretariat of Defense “a report referring to whether or not members of the Mexican Army participated in any raid close to the place of the facts that may have resulted in any arrest.” Regarding the tracking of the call allegedly made by Nitza on February 3, 2010, the telephone company presented a registry of calls made from the telephone from which the call was allegedly made. With the information collected it was ordered that “the technical network with details of the phone calls and the digital location and real-time geographical positioning of the call made” be carried out. A request was also made to the Associate Coordinator of Services so that he could, based on the registry of incoming and outgoing calls and their latitude and longitude coordinates, “locate its geographical positioning and/or the position of the antennas;” and iii) Attorney General of Military Justice: the investigations “seek to verify if military personnel had any participation in the facts and if so, exercise the corresponding criminal action.” CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and that, pursuant with Article 62 of the Convention, it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention states that [i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. In the terms of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court:4 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 4. In International Human Rights Law provisional measures not only have a precautionary nature, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but mainly a protective one, since they protect human rights, in the sense that they seek to avoid irreparable damage to people. The measures are applied as long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable 4 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved on November 24, 2009, during its LXXXV Regular Session held from November 16 to 28, 2009, and in force as of January 1, 2010.