CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes 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. 3. Under the terms of Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. […] 3. In contentious cases before the Court, victims or alleged victims, or their representatives, may submit to it a request for provisional measures, which must be related to the subject matter of the case. […] 5. The Court The Court, or if the Court is not sitting, the Presidency, upon considering that it is possible and necessary, may require the State, the Commission, or the representatives of the beneficiaries to provide information on a request for provisional measures before deciding on the measure requested. […] 4. Under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only preventive in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation, but they are also essentially protective because they protect human rights, insofar as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Thus, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature. 3 5. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires the concurrence of three conditions for the Court to order provisional measures: a) “extreme gravity”; b) “urgency”, and c) the need to “avoid irreparable damage” to persons. These three conditions must coexist and must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. 4 6. Furthermore, the Court has reiterated that, based on the complementary and subsidiary nature of the principles that inform the Inter-American Human Rights System, an order to adopt or maintain provisional measures is justified only in situations 3 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nacion”. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of September 7, 2001, Considering paragraph 4; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 4, 2011, Considering para. 10, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of May 15, 2011, Considering para. 5. 4 Cf. Case Carpio Nicolle et al. . Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering para. 14; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 3, Considering para. 12, and Matter of Certain Venezuelan Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 6, 2011, Considering para. 4. 4