vi) “On May 3, 2013, the Commission received the State’s response to the preventive measures awarded by the Commission. The State forwarded information from the Supreme Court of Justice, indicating that the decision of the Constitutional Chamber of April 26, 2013, did not alter the preventive measure adopted, owing to ‘the stable situation’ of B.” vii) “The representatives indicated in a communication of May 6, 2013, that the State’s first report merely summarized information that the [Commission] already possessed following the brief requesting preventive measures dated April 18, 2013.” viii) “On May 9, 2013, the Commission reiterated to the State the preventive measures awarded in order to safeguard the life, personal integrity, and health of B. because, ‘to date, the medical treatment recommended by the pertinent authorities who are specialized in this matter has not been implemented.’” ix) “On May 15 and 16, 2013, the representatives presented updated information. They indicated that the appraisal by the Institute of Forensic Medicine had concluded that B. was ‘clinically stable, which means that, currently, there is no imminent risk of death.’” x) “The State presented its report on May 17, 2013. It forwarded information from the Supreme Court of Justice, indicating that it had held a hearing to receive evidence in this case on May 15, 2013.” xi) “On May 20, 2013, the representatives asked the Commission to submit a request for provisional measures in favor of B. to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. They indicated that the beneficiary was, at that time, commencing the twenty-fourth week of her high-risk pregnancy, and thus slightly more than five weeks had passed since the Medical Committee […] recommended ending the pregnancy, a situation that places the life, integrity and health of B. at serious risk.” xii) ���The Commission decided to submit to the Court a request for provisional measures in favor of B. on May 24, 2013.” 4. The arguments of the Commission as grounds for its request for provisional measures, which include the following: i) Regarding the situation of extreme gravity, urgency and the irreparable nature of the damage, the Commission argued that: a) “The nature of the rights at stake – life, personal integrity, and health – reveals that the situation is one of extreme gravity and that the damage that could occur, if an immediate intervention is not performed, is irreparable.” b) “Regarding the urgency of the situation, the progress of a pregnancy that entails a situation of risk such as the one described by the medical personnel is itself proof of the extreme urgency of the situation. In addition, from the documentation provided it is evident that this risk increases as the pregnancy is allowed to continue.” ii) Regarding the ineffectiveness of the State’s response, the Commission argued that: a) “The State of El Salvador has failed to adopt the necessary measures to allow B. to have access to the termination of a pregnancy that, as indicated, involves the non-viability of life outside the uterus and constitutes, in addition to her disease, a source of imminent risk to her life, personal integrity, and health.” b) “The main obstacle impeding the access of B. to the said treatment is the absolute penalization of abortion in the State de El Salvador”. 3