2 2. The Order of the President of December 18, 2009, in which it decided to summon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Commission” or “the Commission”), the Republic of El Salvador (hereinafter "El Salvador” or “the State”), and the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter “the representatives”) to a public hearing with the purpose of obtaining information from the State about the implementation of the provisional measures to protect the beneficiaries and, in particular, about the existence of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damages to the beneficiaries and the necessity of maintaining their validity, as well as to listen to the observations of the Commission and the representatives in this sense. 3. The allegations of the parties at the public hearing regarding the present provisional measures, carried out on January 28, 2010, at the venue of the Tribunal.1 Considering: 1. That El Salvador is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since June 23, 1978, and, in accordance with Article 62 of the same, recognized the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on June 6, 1995. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention demands that in order for the Court to provide provisional measures, three conditions must coincide: i) “extreme gravity;” ii) “urgency;” and iii) that they lead to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must co-exist and must be present in every situation in which the intervention of the Tribunal is requested. In the same way, the three conditions described must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of the conditions has ceased to exist, the Tribunal will evaluate the appropriateness of continuing the protection ordered.2 3. That in accordance with its jurisdiction in the framework of provisional measures, the Court must consider only the arguments that relate strictly and directly with extreme gravity, urgency, and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons. In this way, in order to decide maintaining the validity of the provisional measures, the Tribunal must analyze if the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to the adoption of the measures still exists, or if new circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency merit their maintenance. Any other issue can only be heard by the Court as a contentious case.3 1 The following people appear at said hearing: for the Inter-American Commission, Lilly Ching and Silvia Serrano, advisors; for the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, Benjamín Cuellar Martínez, of IDHUCA, Henry Fino Solórzano, of IDHUCA, and Ms. Gisela de León of CEJIL; and for the State: David Ernesto Morales Cruz, Agent and General Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Relations; Sebastián Vaquerano, Alternate Agent and Ambassador of the Republic of El Salvador in Costa Rica, and Ms. Tania Camila Rosa, Sub Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Relations. 2 Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, considering fourteenth; Matter of Guerrero Larez. Proovisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 17, 2009, considering tenth; and Case of the Rochela Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of November 19, 2009, considering fourteenth. 3 Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 10, 1998, considering sixth; Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 24, 2009,