-4- CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The Republic of Suriname has been a State Party to the American Convention since November 12, 1987, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. 2. Article 63.2 of the American Convention establishes that: “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. According to Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 5. The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. 6. If the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, in consultation with the Permanent Commission and, if possible, with the other Judges, shall call upon the State concerned to adopt such urgent measures as may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of any provisional measures that may be ordered by the Court during its next session. 4. The present requests for provisional measures are related to a case being considered by the Court at the stage of monitoring compliance with the Judgment of November 28, 2007. 5. The three conditions required by Article 63(2) of the Convention for the Court to be able to order provisional measures must coexist in any situation in which they are requested. 2 Based on its competence, in the context of provisional measures, the Court may consider only and strictly those arguments that are directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument can only be analyzed and decided, as appropriate, during the consideration of the merits of a contentious case. 3 6. As regards the requirement of “gravity,” for the adoption of provisional measures, the Convention requires that this must be “extreme”; in other words, that it is at its highest and most intense level. The “urgent” nature means that the right or threat involved must be imminent, which requires that the response to remedy them must be immediate. Lastly, regarding the damage, there must be a reasonable probability that it will occur and it should not relate to property or legal interests that can be repaired. 4 2 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Case of Ávila Moreno et al. (Case of Operation Genesis). Request for provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 30, 2013, sixth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Matter of James et al.. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Case of Ávila Moreno et al. (Case of Operation Genesis), supra, sixth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Matters of the Monagas Detention Center (“La Pica”), the Capital Region Penitentiary Center Yare I and Yare II (Yare Prison), Central Occidental Region Penitentiary Center (Uribana Prison), and the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, third considering paragraph, and Case of Ávila Moreno et al. (Case of Operation Genesis), supra, seventh considering paragraph.