-3Attorney of Asociación Pro-Búsqueda, who were granted the right to be heard. On said occasion, the State explained the punishment applicable to Mr. Sánchez, pursuant to Articles 29, 62 and 66 of the Migration Law, "which was exclusively of an economic nature", "and ranged between two dollars, eighty-six cents and one hundred fourteen dollars, twenty-nine cents, so that at no time did personnel at the General Migration and Aliens Board express, in writing or verbally, that the punishment might consist in the expulsion of Mr. Sánchez-González from the country." 7. The brief of March 29, 2006, wherein the Inter-American Commission submitted its comments on the aforementioned request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2 and 5). In said comments, the Inter-American Commission pointed out, inter alia, that it had been informed that on March 28, 2006 the potential deportation action "which was regarded by petitioners as the risk factor in this matter" did not take place. Additionally, it expressed that "[a]t this moment, therefore, the conditions for the application of Article 63(2) of the Convention are not met." 8. The brief of April 4, 2006 and its Appendixes, wherein the representatives of the victims and their next of kin requested the Court "to bring the proceedings of the request for provisional measures in favor of Mr. Mario Sánchez to an end." In this respect, they informed, inter alia, that Mr. Sánchez "was not deported on March 28, 2006, as was feared by members of Asociación Pro-Búsqueda de Niñas y Niños Desaparecidos (Association for the Search of Disappeared Children)." CONSIDERING: 1. That El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention") since June 23, 1978 and recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention provides 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. That, in relation to this matter, Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that: [a]t any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. [w]ith respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 4. That the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal must be founded on the existence of a real situation of extreme gravity and urgency and irreparableness of the damage that may be caused to the rights at risk of being infringed.