14 j. k. l. m. Although it admits that the issue of overcrowding is severe, the State makes a point of the fact that there has been an improvement on this issue; Argentina has prepared a declaration concerning the prisoners held in custody, which is “ready” to be presented before the General Assembly of the OAS, and has ratified the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture; In the case pending before the Commission, an amicable solution was proposed in that the State creates a trust fund destined to the implementation of the provisional measures relating to the penitentiaries located in Mendoza and administered by the Follow-up Commission; and The State shares some of the proposals made by the Inter-American Commission such as the barring of prolonged periods of confinement and the reactivation of the Follow-up Commission, and welcomes new proposals for their consideration. Furthermore, the State made it clear that it is not avoiding responsibility for the present case. CONSIDERING: 1. That Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention from September 5, 1984, and that pursuant to Article 62 of said Convention, Argentina has accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court upon ratifying said instrument; 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention sets forth 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. That, in the terms of Article 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, [...] 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. 6. The beneficiaries of provisional measures or urgent measures ordered by the President may address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights shall present observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the beneficiaries or their representatives. [...] 4. That International Law on Human Rights considers that provisional measures are not only of a precautionary nature in that they preserve a juridical situation, but fundamentally of a shielding nature as they protect human rights. As long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature. 5. That the merits of the case in connection with which these provisional measures were granted are not being tried before this Court, and that the adoption of provisional measures do not amount to passing judgment on the merits of the