-4- 5. That the main basis for the request for provisional measures submitted by the representatives on March 27, 2006 (supra Having Seen clause No. 2) was "the fear of [Association] Pro-Búsqueda", that Mr. Mario Sánchez-González, General Manager of said association, could be "deported immediately after attending the meeting to which he [had been] summoned" on March 28, 2008, at the General Migration Board of El Salvador, which "would put the work of Pro-Búsqueda at risk" (supra Having Seen clause No. 3d). According to the representatives, the notifications received by Mr. Mario Sánchez and the Chairman of the Governing Board of the Association summoning them to appear before the General Migration Board "seem to be related to [...] statements" made by Pro-Búsqueda regarding the fulfillment by El Salvador of the Judgment entered by this Tribunal in the case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. 6. That the same day President of Court called forward, within 24 hours, (supra Having Seen clause the request for provisional measures was submitted, the upon the State and the Inter-American Commission to their comments on the request for provisional measures No. 5). 7. That upon submitting its comments on the request for provisional measures on March 28, 2006, the State expressed that the conditions for the adoption of measures were not met, inasmuch as "at no time was Mr. Sánchez-González informed that he would be subject to deportation to his country of origin, since no punishment other than an economic sanction was applicable to his violations of the Migration Law" (supra Having Seen clause No. 6). In this regard, El Salvador furnished a copy of the Record of the Right to be Heard and Submission of Period to File Evidence drawn up that same day, which shows that "[Mr. Sánchez-González and his attorney" were told that [the former] had infringed Articles 29 and 66 of the Migration Law, since he had extended his temporary residence beyond the stipulated period and had continued to work without authorization; and that a fine would be imposed on him [...]" (supra Having Seen clause No. 6). 8. That in its comments on the request for provisional measures the Commission remarked that it had been informed that on March 28, 2006 the potential deportation action "which was regarded by petitioners as the risk factor in this matter" did not take place. Additionally, it expressed that "[a]t this moment, therefore, the conditions for the application of Article 63(2) of the Convention are not met." (supra Having Seen clause No. 7). 9. That after the submission of the comments of the State and the Commission on the request for measures, the representatives forwarded a brief whereby they requested the Court "bring the proceedings of the request for provisional measures in favor of Mr. Mario Sánchez to an end" and informed, inter alia, that Mr. Sánchez "was not deported on March 28, 2006, as was feared by members of Asociación ProBúsqueda de Niñas y Niños Desaparecidos (Association for the Search of Disappeared Children)" (supra Having Seen clause No. 8). Furthermore, according to the information received by the Court, the punishment that could be applied to Mr. Sánchez-González for a potential infringement of the Migration Law is of an exclusively economic nature and does not involve deportation. NOW THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,