7 17. Article 63(2) of the American Convention holds that, “In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court will, in matters under its consideration, be able to “adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent.” 18. Mr. Fernández Saré based his request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen 10) on the fact that the victims were dismissed more than 18 years ago, that the proceeding has gone on for more than 12 years, that some of the victims have died, and that the great majority of those still alive are in poor health that they are not able to have cared for due to lack of financial resources. 19. The common interveners did not submit comments with regard to this request for provisional measures. 20. The Inter-American Commission did not make specific reference to the request for provisional measures and referred to what it had expressed in its comments on compliance with the Judgment 21. The State asked the Court to “rule inadmissible the request submitted for adoption of provisional measures" on the grounds that "there is no situation of gravity and urgency capable of causing irreparable damages to the [group] of former employees of the Congress of the Republic" that presented the request. The State added that the request for provisional measures makes reference to "the provision of full medical care through the Social Security system known as ‘ESSALUD’ for each of the victims and their close relatives […] for as long as the case has not been definitively resolved. This point is not material” to the operative paragraphs of the Judgment. It indicated that the brief requesting provisional measures does not make "individualized mention of the specific situation of the 257 and/or 36 victims signing it" and that it is not able to demonstrate the existence of the conditions necessary for ordering the provisional measures as set forth in Article 63(2) of the Convention. The State highlighted that the measures requested would be to the benefit of a group of individuals and not all 257 workers. It gave current information on their situation as reported on by the human resources office of the Congress of the Republic, specifying that currently, 24 of the 257 victims work in the Congress of the Republic; that of the 235 remaining victims, 45 work independently, 29 are working for various State institutions, 103 are unemployed, three have passed away, two are living abroad, and two are laid off. That information would have allowed for the specification and identification of the specific situation of the 208 victims in this case. 22. The Court understands the serious problems that could have affected the victims as a consequence of the facts in this case and, later, as a consequence of the State's delay in fulfilling its obligations as a result of the judgment. Nevertheless, the purpose of the request is partially linked to the obligation imposed on the State in the fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment,10 for which reason the reinstatement of the victims in their jobs could be one of the eventual legal consequences of the improper dismissal of some of the workers, which is being determined domestically (supra Considering 8). In this sense, Article 63(2) of the Convention is not applicable. In addition, and attending to the fact that the State has found that the victims were dismissed improperly and without justification from their jobs, it can be assumed that economic damages were suffered in many cases and that the victims in those cases were excluded from particular social security systems. Thus, the Tribunal finds that in this case, it does not correspond to the Court to address the request for provisional measures for procuring health services for the victims, notwithstanding the actions that the State may soon take attending to its respective constitutional and legal provisions and in compliance with the general obligations established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention to guarantee that the victims in this case have access to health services through State institutions or programs, at least while their situation is not resolved 10 In a similar sense, see Raxcaco Reyes et al. Request for Broadening of Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated February 2, 2007, Considering 21. Also see De la Cruz Florez, Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, Considering 77.