the newborn and decided to take her to their unit to provide the necessary care, and she died at 7:01 p.m.” that day; d) Ms. B. was “subsequently transferred to the intensive care unit in order to monitor her condition continuously to avoid complications in her syndrome of systemic lupus erythematosus”; e) The State provided assurance that Ms. B. had “made satisfactory progress and her dyspnea had improved. Her vital signs and urinary output were normal. The laboratory tests gave normal results; [consequently,] it was decided to take her back to the perinatology service where the evaluations continued”; f) On “June 10 [2013, the] patient asked to be released from hospital in order to see her son,” and this was authorized the same day; g) On June 12, 2013, Ms. B. underwent “a cardiovascular evaluation, and was found to be haemodynamically stable” and “a postpartum evaluation was carried out in the perinatology service, finding her stable at that time[;] out-patient follow-up in four weeks’ time was prescribed and recommendations in case of any complication,” and h) The State assured that “[t]o date, medical follow-up by different medical subspecializations is being provided to control her medical condition.” 7. Regarding the facts indicated above, the State argued that it “had indeed taken and implemented all the necessary measures, from the perspective of medical science, to ensure the proper protection of the rights recognized in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention […] with regard to Ms. B.” It added that, “although the Inter-American Court […] had not requested it, the State of El Salvador had also adopted the maximum number of measures and actions required to preserve the life of the fetus that was in the uterus of Ms. B. so that every effort had been made to ensure this life, even though the result was unsuccessful owing to the anencephaly that it suffered from, which prevented the autonomous functioning of the central nervous system and, therefore, the impossibility of the functioning and control of the heart rate and the breathing rate, as well as of other neuronal activity.” Based on the foregoing, the State asked that the Court “assess its compliance with the provisional measures required [and] issue the corresponding order, closing the preventive procedure.” 8. The representatives, in their observations on the State’s report, indicated that “even though the passage of time and the need to implement alternative methods of treatment did not lead to the death of the beneficiary, they did not allow it to be guaranteed at this time that irreparable damage has not been caused to the health, personal integrity – physical and mental – and even the quality of life of the beneficiary.” Regarding the State’s indications that it would continue providing Ms. B. with medical follow-up on the disease she suffers from, the representatives alleged that “this was partially true, because the beneficiary does not live in San Salvador, so that the costs of her transfer for each medical appointment or test are being paid for by the organizations that represent her.” The representatives assured that they had “received information from the beneficiary that, a few days after the surgery, the nephrologist had allegedly told her that she was suffering from the apparent failure of both kidneys.” 9. Based on the above, the representatives asked that “the Salvadoran State present detailed and updated information on the different tests and treatments that the beneficiary is undergoing as a follow up to the surgical procedure that was performed and, especially, in relation to the disease from which she suffers.” In particular, they considered that “it would 3