in all instances in which the Court’s intervention is sought. Likewise, the three conditions
described must persist for the Court to maintain the protection measures ordered. If one of these
conditions is no longer in effect, then the Court must assess the need to continue with the
protection ordered.5
5.
This Tribunal has previously noted that provisional measures are of an exceptional nature
and that they refer to a specific temporal situation. Thus, due to their very nature, they cannot
be perpetuated indefinitely.6 In light of its jurisdiction, in the context of provisional measures, the
Court must consider only those arguments that are strictly and directly related to the extreme
gravity and urgency of the situation and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons. It
is in this manner that, in deciding whether to keep the provisional measures in force, the Tribunal
must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to the adoption of
such measures persists, or whether new circumstances, also extremely grave and urgent,
warrant keeping them in force.7
A.
Continuance of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that brought about
the present provisional measures
6.
In the Order of April 3, 2009 (supra Having Seen paragraph 1), the Inter-American Court
deemed it appropriate to maintain the provisional measures ordered in favor of Andrew Dottin,
Kevin Dial, Arnold Ramlogan, Balkissoon Roodal, Beemal Ramnarace, Sheldon Roach, and Takoor
Ramcharan for an additional period of at least six months. Additionally, to facilitate the
assessment of the maintenance of such measures, the Tribunal considered it necessary to
request that the State, the representatives, and the Inter-American Commission submit updated
information regarding the existence and continuance of the situation of extreme gravity and
urgency and the risk of such persons suffering irreparable harm.
7.
The Court observes that the State and the representatives did not submit the information
required by the Court in the aforementioned Order of April 3, 2009 (supra Having Seen
paragraph 1), despite having been asked to submit such information on various occasions (supra
Having Seen paragraph 3). Therefore, in order to evaluate the implementation of the present
provisional measures and determine the need to maintain them or, if necessary, to lift them, the
Court will analyze the information provided by the Inter-American Commission, as well as
information of public knowledge that is available to the parties and the Commission.
B.
Information submitted by the Inter-American Commission
8.
The Inter-American Commission reported that the death penalties imposed on the
beneficiaries Andrew Dottin, Kevin Dial, Arnold Ramlogan, Beemal Ramnarace, Sheldon Roach,
Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, Considering para.
5.
5
Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering para. 14, and Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding
Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, Considering para. 3.
6
Cf. Matter of Clemente Teherán et al. (Zenú Indigenous Community). Provisional Measures regarding Colombia.
Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2003, Considering para. 3, and Matter of Millacura
Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February
13, 2013, Considering para. 8.
7
Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering para. 6, and Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional
Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, Considering
para. 4.
3