3 with similar profiles and complexion; incidents of robbery to close next of kin [and] threats,” and d) The situation of extreme gravity and urgency is manifested in that since 2002, the year in which the facts occurred, to the present date, the investigations had not advanced. They affirmed that “[t]he impunity for the authors of these acts leads to repetition and worsening of the acts against the beneficiaries.” Additionally, said situation “is directly linked with the work of denounce that [Ms. Rosendo] has made in relation to her case, whose pattern and context have much in common with the case of Inés Fernández [Ortega].” 6. The Order of the President of the Tribunal of December 23, 2009, through which it resolved, inter alia: 1. To dismiss the request for extension of the provisional measures, according to that indicated in the eighth Considering paragraph of the […] Order. 2. To require the State to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, no later than January 8, 2010, about the situation of extreme gravity and urgency of Ms. Valentina Rosendo Cantú and her daughter Yenis Bernardino Rosendo, within the case of Rosendo Cantú v. México. 7. The brief of January 5, 2010, through which the State requested “an extension of 15 days to complete the report regarding the situation” of Valentina Rosendo Cantú and Yenis Bernardino Rosendo requested by the President. 8. The communications of January 7 and 21, 2010, through which the Secretary of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Secretary”), following the instructions of the President of the Tribunal, respectively: a) granted an extension to the State until January 15, 2010, to present said report, and b) reminded the State that, at the expiration of the extension granted, the mentioned report had not been received, for which the Secretary requested its submission as soon as possible. 9. The brief of January 26, 2010, through which the State presented information about the alleged situation of extreme gravity and urgency of Valentina Rosendo Cantú and Yenis Bernardino Rosendo. CONSIDERING: 1. That Mexico is a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and, according to Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides 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.”