Medicine indicated in its report that, ��with regard to the emotional state of the individual examined, as she herself has said, she is under pressure, because she has been told that she is in danger of dying if they do not decide ‘to remove the child.’” In addition, it indicated that “[t]he emotional situation of the individual examined is also affected by her belief that she could be faced with a prison sentence.” It added that “[a]nother situation that causes her tension is her necessary separation from the family because, at the present time, she is hospitalized.” The Institute of Forensic Medicine concluded that “[t]hese situations have led to the appearance of psychosomatic symptoms consistent with a state of emotional tension.” 21 Accordingly, the Court considers that the risk of irreparable damage to the life and physical and mental integrity of B. has been proved in this matter. 15. As previously mentioned, in matters in which the adoption of measures seeks to relate exclusively to their protective nature, it is necessary to analyze, in addition to the three requirements established in Article 63 of the Convention, the effectiveness of the State’s actions to deal with the situation described and the degree of lack of protection in which the individuals for whom the measures are requested would find themselves if the measures are not adopted (supra considering paragraph 4). In this regard, the Court considers that, in the context of the extreme situation to which this matter refers, the interAmerican protection must reinforce and complement, 22 to the greatest extent possible, the internal decisions adopted, so that B. does not find herself unprotected in regard to the possible harm that could be caused to her life and personal. In particular, the Court stresses that, in its ruling the Constitutional Chamber stated that “after the twentieth week, an eventual interruption of the pregnancy would not lead to or, in particular, have the purpose of the destruction of the fetus and, also, that the latter would be provided with the necessary measures to ensure, insofar as possible, its life outside the uterus.” In addition, in the context of the decision taken by the Constitutional Chamber, “the defendant health authorities are obliged to continue monitoring the petitioner’s health and to provide her with the treatment that, at any moment, 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.” Therefore, the State is obliged to guarantee that the team of treating physicians has the necessary protection to exercise fully their functions based on the decisions that, according to medical science, the said medical team may decide to adopt. 16. In addition, the Court takes note of the contents of the recent reports concerning this matter, in relation to the procedure that could be implemented, taking into account that B. is now in the twenty-sixth week of her pregnancy. Thus, on May 7, 2013, in its conclusions, the Institute of Forensic Medicine stated that, “from an obstetric perspective, [B.] is in the second trimester of her second pregnancy, so that, from a medical standpoint, one can no longer speak of abortion,” 23 and that “if complications occurred or a reactivation of the above-mentioned chronic diseases, [it would be possible] to proceed to terminate it by the corresponding means.” Similarly, on May 17, 2013, the treating physician of the National Maternity Hospital indicated that “it should be clarified that, from a medical point of want to live for my other child … if this one was healthy, I would risk my life], published on “elfaro.net” on April 23, 2013 (file of request for provisional measures, tome I, annex 9). 21 Report of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of May 7, 2013 (file of request for provisional measures, annex 11). 22 The Preamble to the American Convention states that the essential rights of man are not derived from one’s being a national of a certain State, but are based upon attributes of the human personality, and that they therefore justify international protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States. 23 Report of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of May 7, 2013 (file of request for provisional measures, annex 11). 13