6. The brief of August 14, 2013, in which the State presented its observations on the communications of the Commission and of the representatives. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates 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. These measures are regulated in Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”). 3 4. Based on its competence, in the context of provisional measures the Court may consider only and strictly those arguments that are directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument can only be decided during consideration of the merits of a contentious case. 4 5. The Court observes that the State presented information on the decision taken by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on May 29, 2013, declaring “inadmissible the petition filed,” and “inadmissible the constitutional protection (amparo) sought” by Ms. B “for the supposed violation of her fundamental rights to health and to life.” In this regard, the Court emphasizes that this judicial decision was described and taken into account in the Order adopted on May 29, 2013; accordingly, it is not necessary to refer to it again. 6. Regarding the facts that occurred in relation to Ms. B. after the provisional measures had been adopted in her favor, in essence the State has provided the following information: a) On “June 3 [2013], Ms. B. was 26 weeks pregnant” and that day she underwent an “ultrasound”; b) “The head of the perinatology service indicate[d that] a caesarean section [would] be performed because she was in labor with a previous history of a caesarean section and a short period between pregnancies and amniotic fluid. The requirements for detaining the uterine activity with medication were not met because this was contraindicated in the case of fetuses with fetal abnormalities incompatible with life”; c) The caesarean section was performed during the afternoon of June 3, 2013. The State advised that “a female infant was extracted […] with total absence of braincase and brain tissue.” The State also indicated that “the neonatology team attended to 3 2009. Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 4 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, considering paragraph 6, and Case of the Barrios Family. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 30, 2013, considering paragraph 4. 2