3 observations to the 25th State report and to the brief of the State of September 30, 2009. The representatives provided additional information to that supplied at the public hearing with respect to alleged facts of violence reported by the inmates during their visit to the Urso Branco prison (hereinafter also referred to as “the Prison”, “the Penitentiary” or “Urso Branco”) in September, 2009. 12. The brief of November 23, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission submitted its observations to the 25th report of the State and to the brief of the State of September 30, 2009, presented at the public hearing. CONSIDERING: 1. That Brazil is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 25, 1992, and, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, it has acknowledged the adversarial jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention sets forth that “in 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. That in the terms of Article 26 of the Court Rules of Procedure,2 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, 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. […] 4. That by virtue of its jurisdiction, in the scope of provisional measures, the Court must only consider those arguments strictly and directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Therefore, in order to decide whether it keeps the provisional measures in force, the Court must analyze if the situation of extreme gravity and urgency which led to their adoption still remains, or whether new equally serious and urgent circumstances deserve their maintenance. Any other matters can only be submitted to the Court through the corresponding adversarial cases.3 2 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court during the XLIX Regular Session, held from November 16 to November 25, 2000, and partially amended during the LXXXII Regular Session, held from January 19 to January 31, 2009, in accordance with Articles 71 and 72 thereof. 3 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 20, 1998, Considering clause No. six; Case of A.J. et al. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering clause No. Four, and Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 12, 2009, Considering clause No. five.