4 […] 4. That as regards its competent jurisdiction, when provisional measures are the matter, it befalls the Court to consider only those arguments directly and strictly related to the extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Thus, to the effect of deciding whether to maintain the provisional measures in force, the Tribunal must establish if the situation of extreme gravity and urgency having determined the adoption thereof still persists, or if equally serious and urgent fresh circumstances warrant they be maintained. Any other matter can only be brought forward for consideration by the Court in the course of the pertaining contentious cases2. * * * 5. That in its Order of November 17, 2005, the President of the Tribunal deemed that “from the background information submitted by the Commission on this [matter] it appear[ed] prima facie that […] a situation of extreme gravity and urgency prevail[ed] at the Tatuapé Complex, in such manner as to put the life and personal integrity of the children and adolescents deprived of their liberty at such center in serious risk and [rendered them] vulnerable3, for which reason it decided to urgently protect their life and their personal integrity. Given the persistence of the situation described, the Court, by means of its Orders of November 30, 2005, July 4, 2006 and July 3, 2007 reiterated to the State the order to adopt protection measures in favor of the beneficiaries (supra Having Seen Clause Number One). 6. That the events having taken place since the Order was issued by the President of the Court in the instant matter, on November 17, 2005, warrant considering the current situation of the beneficiaries and adopting the instant Order. 7. That regarding the measures adopted to protect the life and integrity of the beneficiaries, the State indicated that it had deployed its best efforts to comply with the measures ordered by the Court and that, among other action, it had promoted psycho-social, medical and pedagogical care of the adolescents; it had created communication channels with society for them in order to guarantee its participation in the enforcement of socio-educational commitment measures for the adolescents; it had established new teaching proposals contributing to reduce the time for which they 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering Clause 6; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008, Considering Clause Number Five; and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 08, 2008, Considering Clause 10. 3 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2005, Considering Clause 9.