22 under Article 49 of the Convention. According to the Commission, the petitioners recently requested "that the agreement not be approved." Regarding this, the State highlighted that it has been requesting approval of the agreement for two years and has gotten no response. 49. Representatives indicated that, in their judgment, the "Friendly Settlement Agreement on the issue of the Mendoza Penitentiary does not cover the Provisional Measures, and the petitioners will not block their removal if the Nation and the Province fully comply with the agreement." They indicated that "in this case, the petitioners and the State want the [Commission] to evaluate and supervise the agreement, not put an end to the matter with its signature," for which reason "if the National State has sent its request for [the application of Article] 49 of the Convention, it does so within the framework of the commitments made," but they indicated that "it is the [Commission] that must decide if the agreement meets inter-American standards and if it has been complied with." During the public hearing in November of 2010, they indicated that although the friendly settlement does not form part of the provisional measures, Law No. 17.930 establishing compliance with it came out of these provisional measures, for which reason it is closely linked, and the measures on which they have reached an agreement would help to improve democratic institutions in order to rectify the situation of individuals deprived of liberty. 50. For its part, the Commission highlighted that the provisional measures were requested independently and "apart from the existence of the case," with their purpose being to protect rights rather than to prevent the result of the petitions brought before the Commission. It indicated that it is true that there is a friendly settlement agreement presented by "one of the petitioning groups" and the Commission "is evaluating it in order to issue a report pursuant to Article 49 of the Convention." In particular, it found that the State request for the Court to rule on the urgency of the approval of the friendly settlement agreement is inadmissible given that the preceding is independent of the provisional measures and it falls solely and exclusively to the Commission under its independence and autonomy to rule on cases being processed before it. 51. The Court views positively the conciliatory attitude of the petitioners and the State, manifested in this matter through the agreements reached in the so-called “Asuncion Accords,” (supra Having Seen 3) as it reflects a commitment to comply with obligations under the Convention. The Court observes that the Commission indicated that it has not yet approved the agreement but that it is studying the possibility of doing so pursuant to Article 49 of the Convention. It is possible for some of the measures agreed upon between the State and the petitioners in the "friendly settlement" intended to remedy situations apparently not compatible with the American Convention taking place in the Mendoza penitentiaries to include elements also pertaining to the purpose of these provisional measures. Although the provisional measures proceeding should not imply a forum for debate on questions of the merits that could imply a pre-judgment in a case, it is clear that the jurisdiction to weigh and supervise that friendly settlement agreement falls exclusively to the Inter-American Commission. Consequently, upon lifting these provisional measures, the Tribunal limits itself to ruling on whether the situation of risk that led to this proceeding persists in the terms indicated (Considering 39), for which reason it does not fall to the Tribunal to rule on what the State has indicated as far as the need to approve the aforementioned agreement. It is enough to find that the Inter-American Human Rights May 29.