6. The brief of March 19, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented its observations on the information provided by the State, as well as with regard to the corresponding observations of the representatives. 7. The brief of April 16, 2012, and its attachment, in which the representatives communicated the request of the beneficiary of the measures that the provisional measures ordered in this case be lifted. This brief was transmitted to the State and the Inter-American Commission on April 19, 2012. 8. The brief of April 19, 2012, in which the State presented its bi-monthly report on the implementation of these provisional measures. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1978, and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 25, 1999. 2. Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that, for the Court to order provisional measures, three conditions must be met: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) that their purpose is to “avoid irreparable harm to persons.” These three conditions are co-existent and must be present in every situation where the Court’s intervention is required. Similarly, the three conditions described must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered,1 without prejudice to being able to order it again if, in the future, the three conditions are present again. In addition, even though the standard used by the Court or its President to assess these requirements is prima facie2 when ordering the measures of protection, the need to maintain them calls for an evaluation of the existence of situations of extreme gravity and urgency that gave rise to those measures.3 3. According to the provision established in Article 63(2) of the Convention provisional measures ordered by the Court are binding on the State in conformity to a basic principle of the law of international responsibility of the States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).4 1 See Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering clause 14, and Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 4, 2010, Considering clause 2. 2 See Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of August 30, 2004, Considering clause 14 and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to the United Mexican States. Order of the Court of May 26, 2010, Considering clause 14. 3 See Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, Considering clause 7, and Matter of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of February 20, 2012, Considering clause 27. 4 See Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of June 14, 1998, considering clause 6. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of May 6, 2010; considering clause 5 and Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the President’s Court of July 21, 2010. Considering clause 4. 2