stipulating that in "contentious cases under [its] consideration," the victims or their representatives may request provisional measures, in such a manner that this rule does not contradict, but quite the contrary, the interpretation in any way such that the words "matter" and "case" are for these purposes, synonymous. Consequently, not only the Convention, an agreement between States and an autonomous and foremost source, therefore, of the rule applicable to this matter, states that the words "matter" and "case" are, with regard to the provisional measures, synonyms, but also the States themselves in the Statute of the Court18 and the latter even stated it in its Rules of Procedures, which it also approved.19 Additionally, it must be emphasized that in Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, found, as stated, in Title II "Procedure," it states that, "[a]t any stage of the proceedings" the Court may order provisional measures, which leaves no doubt as to how this legislative body interpreted the provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention, namely that such measures take place within a contentious case proceeding that the Court is hearing or ruling upon. The above is strengthened by what the Court itself expressed regarding the second possibility to adopt provisional measures in accordance with Article 63(2) of the Convention, i.e., in "matters yet to be brought before it”: "[o]n previous occasions, the Court interpreted that the phrase 'matters not yet submitted to it', contained in Article 63(2) of the Convention, supposes that there is at least a possibility that the matter behind the request for provisional measures may be brought before the Court in its contentious jurisdiction. For this small possibility to exist, the procedure set forth in Articles 44 and 46 to 48 of the American Convention must have been initiated before the Commission." 20 This jurisprudence therefore implies that in order for the Court to order provisional measures with respect to "matters not yet brought before it" is necessary, on the one hand, that there is a possibility that they may become contentious cases and, on the other, that the Commission, "even when there is strictly still no contentious case before the inter-American System," 21makes the corresponding request. 18 Approved by Resolution N° 448, passed by the OAS General Assembly during its ninth session, held in La Paz, Bolivia, October 1979. 19 Passed by the Court during the LXXXV Ordinary Period of Sessions, held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 20 Cf. Matter of García Uribe et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 2, 2006, Considering Clause three and four; Matter of José Luis Álvarez Galdámez et al. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011, Considering Clause nine, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding the United Mexican States Order of the Court of May 15, 2011, Considering Clause 10. 21 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding the United Mexican States, supra note 20, Considering Clause 11: "The Court has deemed it necessary to clarify that, given the protective nature of provisional measures [...], exceptionally, it is possible order them, even if strictly speaking there is no contentious case before the inter-American system, in situations that, prima facie, could result in a serious and urgent affectation of human rights. To do so, an assessment of the following should be carried out: the problem raised, the effectiveness of State actions in light of the situation, and the lack of protection the beneficiaries of the measures would face if they were not adopted. To achieve this it is necessary that the Commission present sufficient grounds to meet the 4