7 10. Article 63(2) of the Convention demands that for the Court to be able to order provisional measures three conditions must be present: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency,” and iii) that it try to “avoid irreparable damages to the persons.” These three conditions are coexistent and shall be present in all situations in which the intervention of the Tribunal is requested.10 In the present matter, the extreme magnitude and intensity of the situation of risk due to the alleged disappearance of Mr. Natera Balboa while he was under state custody has been indicated. Likewise, the Court considers that an intervention in this case cannot be delayed in order to avoid the threat since a delay or a lack of response would in itself imply a danger. Finally, the irreparable nature of the situation of extremely grave and urgent risk, with regard to the rights to life and humane treatment that the Tribunal has the obligation to protect when the circumstances established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention are present, is evident. 11. Upon ordering that the State adopt urgent measures, the President observed, in its Order, that the next of kin and their representatives denounced the fact before different state authorities, such as: a) The Public Prosecutors’ Office with Competence in Fundamental Rights of the city of Bolívar; b) The Attorney General of the Republic; c) The National Office of Penitentiary Services, and d) The Court on Duty in Control Functions of the Second Circuit of the Criminal Legal Jurisdiction of the Bolivar State. Regarding said processes, this Court has not been informed of results or specific progress that would allow it to determine with clarity what occurred or what Mr. Natera’s whereabouts are. 12. Additionally, the President observed the response the State had offered to the request for urgent information forwarded by the Inter-American Commission on November 20, 2009, in the terms of Article XIV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (supra Having Seen paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e)). Even though the State informed of some investigations in progress at a domestic level regarding Mr. Natera’s situation, there is no evidence that the initiated criminal investigation had any positive results regarding precise and specific information on Mr. Natera’s fate or whereabouts. 13. In this sense, it is necessary to point out that every time there is reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has disappeared, prompt and immediate action by the prosecuting and judicial authorities ordering appropriate and necessary measures to determine the whereabouts of the victim or the place where he had been detained, is indispensable.11 On the other hand, in situations of imprisonment such as those of the present case, the habeas corpus petition represents, within the indispensable judicial guarantees, the ideal means to both guarantee the person’s liberty and to control the respect for life and protect the individual’s personal integrity, in order to guarantee that the detainee be brought before the judicial body in charge of verifying the legality of the arrest, as well as to prevent his disappearance or the indetermination of his place of arrest and protect him against torture or other treatments or cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishments.12 However, from the 10 Cfr. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause fourteen, and Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 6, Considering clause ten. 11 Cfr. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 134. 12 Cfr. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 82; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 10, para. 72; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 111, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 79. See also Habeas