6 14. The State indicated that, by the Order of September 26, 2006, the Court instructed the State to adopt provisional measures to the benefit of Gloria Giralt de García-Prieto, José Mauricio García-Prieto-Hirlemann and María de los Ángeles GarcíaPrieto de Charur, and to the benefit of the members of the Instituto de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas (Human Rights Institute of the Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas, hereinafter “IDHUCA”) José Benjamín Cuellar-Martínez, Matilde Guadalupe Hernández de Espinoza and José Roberto Burgos-Viale, further including, on December 3, 2006, Ricardo Alberto Iglesias-Herrera, who had been offered as expert by IDHUCA. It added that, in its Judgment, the Court found that “only José Mauricio Garcia-Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de Garcia-Prieto were injured parties, as victims of the violations committed against them”, and thus requested the Court to confirm if provisional measures should continue in favor of all other individuals mentioned above, since those persons were not held to be victims. 15. In that regard, the Commission considered that the fact that the Court did not hold the aforementioned individuals to be victims does not affect the effectiveness of the protection measures ordered, which should be maintained as long as the circumstances that led to their adoption continue to exist, in accordance with Article 63(2) of the Convention. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considered that the protection measures should remain in force, irrespective of the Judgment rendered by this Court. Therefore, the Commission concluded that “the request for clarification filed by the State regarding the effectiveness of the provisional measures is not subject to interpretation under the Judgment rendered in the instant case.” 16. The representatives stated that this request made by the State “is not aimed at clarifying an obscure point of the [J]udgment either, [since] the granting of the provisional measures to the benefit of these individuals was made effective through two separate orders, different from the [J]udgment whose interpretation is sought […]. Consequently, the request of the State should be dismissed.” The representatives, moreover, indicated that the provisional measures had not been implemented effectively in the instant case. 17. The Court notes that paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Judgment on the Merits contain a summary related to the adoption and extension of the provisional measures ordered by the Court, by means of the Orders issued on September 26, 2006, and January 27, 2007, to the benefit of the following individuals: Gloria Giralt de García Prieto, José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann, María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, José Benjamín Cuéllar Martínez, Matilde Guadalupe Hernández de Espinoza, José Roberto Burgos Viale, and Ricardo Alberto Iglesias Herrera. However, in the Judgment, this Court made no specific ruling on the provisional measures mentioned above. 18. The Court notes that the subject-matter of the provisional measures is different from that of the cases brought before the Court since, in accordance with Article 63(2) of the American Convention,15 provisional measures are exceptional in nature insofar 15 Section 63(2) of the American Convention provides 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.