9 5. That operative paragraph number eleven of the Judgment of preliminary objections, merits and reparations delivered on June 7, 2003, the Court ordered that “the State must provide the conditions required to transfer the mortal remains of Juan Humberto Sánchez to the place chosen by his next of kin, at no cost to them” (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). 6. Based on the above, the Court noted in the recent Order of Compliance with Judgment of September 12, 2005 that “13 years have elapsed from the date of the victim’s execution, more than two years from the date of the Judgment of the Court and more than one year from the date of exhumation of the victim's mortal remains; however, the State has not delivered the remains to the relatives in the place agreed by them. It is essential that the State take the necessary actions to make delivery and facilitate burial of the victim’s remains, according to the provisions of the judgment of the Court, as the reasonable time to do so has already elapsed.” Consequently, the Court decided not to close the proceedings concerning the oversight of compliance with the unfulfilled obligations, and decided “to require the State to take the necessary measures to fully and immediately comply with the operative paragraphs pending fulfillment of the Judgment of preliminary objections, merits and reparations delivered by the Court on June 7, 2003 and this Order, according to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (supra Having Seen clause No. 4). 7. That, in considering a request for provisional measures, it is not possible to take into account an argument which is not strictly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other matter can only be taken into account by the Court in contentious cases or requests for advisory opinions.1 8. That from the grounds of fact and law of the request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen clauses No. 7 to 9), it can be inferred that the purpose of the request filed by the representatives is identical to the purpose of the obligation imposed on the State under operative paragraph number eleven of the above mentioned Judgment, which is pending fulfillment and is being monitored by this Court. Consequently, the issue raised before the Court is not a matter which may be resolved by provisional measures under Article 63(2) of the Convention, but a matter inherent to the oversight of compliance with the Judgment delivered in the instant case. NOW, THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, In exercise of the powers conferred on it Article 63(2) of the American Convention, Article 25 of the Statute of the Court and Article 25 of its Rules of Procedure, 1 Cf. Case of Cesti-Hurtado. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2005, Considering clause No. 5; Matter of Castañeda-Gutman. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2005, Considering clause No. 8; Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering clause No. 6.