and her health is stable despite her pregnancy and the diseases from which she suffers”; xv) “Despite the foregoing, the fact that [B.] is stable at this time does not mean that the risk implicit in her medical history – which has been classified as severe and exceptional – has disappeared, owing to the unpredictable behavior of the underlying disease from which she suffers (SLE) and the biological changes that her body may undergo in the final stages of pregnancy during which the probability of the medical complications that she suffered during her first pregnancy is increased, or others may occur. Added to this, the anencephaly of the fetus that she is carrying may also, in the future, be the cause of obstetric complications”; xvi) “Therefore, it should be made clear that the actual absence of especially severe symptoms or complications in the health of [B.] – according to examinations that were incorporated into this proceeding – is not necessarily a permanent situation that will not vary over the course of time and, for this reason, the defendant health authorities are obliged to continue monitoring the petitioner’s health and to provide her with the treatment that, at all times, is appropriate for her medical condition, as well as to implement the procedures that, according to medical science, are considered essential to deal with any future complications that may occur,” and xvii) “This Chamber maintains that the rights of the mother cannot be privileged over those of the unborn child or vice versa; in addition, that there is an absolute impediment to authorize the practice of an abortion, because this runs counter to the constitutional protection that is granted to the human being “from the moment of conception” (art. 1, para. 2). While respecting these requirements, the circumstances that authorize the medical intervention and the appropriate moment for this are decisions that correspond strictly to the medical professionals who must assume the risks involved in the exercise of their profession.” 11. Bearing in mind the background information indicated above, the Court will now analyze the requirements established in Article 63 of the Convention; namely, extreme gravity and urgency, and the possibility of irreparable damage. However, before this, the Court recalls that the adoption of urgent or provisional measures does not presuppose or involve an eventual decision on the merits of the matter if the case should be submitted to the consideration of the Court, or prejudge the State’s responsibility for the facts denounced. 18 12. Regarding the first requirement, the Court underscores that all the medical reports cited have emphasized the severity of the health situation of B. Indeed, the disease from which B. suffers, added to the other medical conditions that she has and the fact that she is pregnant, can result in a series of medical complications and even death (supra considering paragraph 8). Indeed, the Court observes that, on April 22, 2013, the Latin American Center for Perinatology, Women and Reproductive Health” of the Pan-American Health Organization indicated that B. had [systemic lupus erythematosus] with exacerbated symptoms as of the first trimester of the pregnancy, and with two added complications of lupus nephrosis and hypertension, which have been treated to date with numerous medicines that could jeopardize her health [and, t]herefore, she has a high risk of dying,” and also that “the patient suffers from lupus nephritis; namely, one of the highest causes of 18 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 13, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of L.M., Provisional measures with regard to Paraguay. Order of the Court of July 1, 2001, twenty-second considering paragraph. 11