4 (iii) It is essential that security be provided by a mechanism other than “public security forces,” for example Peace Brigades International, “that guarantees [her] safety and that of [her] immediate family while it is considered that the risk continues.” According to the beneficiary, the State had made the start of the risk assessment conditional on the beneficiary “accepting the mechanisms” that would prepare it. (iv) The fundamental element is “to reestablish conditions of security, recognition of social solidarity, and participation […] as regards a woman’s right to live free from violence since, to date, the information produced tends to create a climate of hate aimed at [human rights] defenders and of disinformation as regards the responsibility of guaranteeing this right.” 8. On September 29, 2009, Mrs. Pérez Torres specified that “she had decided to move, together with [her] immediate family, to another country in which she could request asylum.” She had taken this decision, “having decided that asylum is strictly necessary given that the imminent danger continued despite the urgent measures of protection ordered by the Court and the meetings held with the State seeking to implement them.” Mrs. Pérez Torres advised that “the procedure to request asylum is still being processed, so that it was possible that she would have to return to Mexico.” Consequently, she asked that the provisional measures “remain latent, ready to be activated should she have to return to Mexico.” 9. Regarding the foregoing, the Commission noted that “the information provided by [the beneficiary] indicates that the State has not adopted the measures ordered by the Court.” In that regard, the Commission recalled that “although a report on the beneficiaries’ risk was relevant, it should be prepared in a parallel to the implementation of protective measures.” In its observations of June 10, 2011, the Commission indicated that, in Mexico, Chihuahua headed the list for complaints of attacks against human rights defenders; hence, taking into account this contextual information, together with the threats received that the beneficiary had received, would permit “considering that the situation of risk possibly persists.” Lastly, it indicated that “the essential element in order to evaluate” the request to lift the measures “is the information that the representatives can provide in this regard, particularly as regards the definition of the situation of the beneficiaries as regards their request for asylum abroad.” b) Conclusions of the Court 10. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that three conditions be met for the Court to be able to order provisional measures: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) the need “to avoid irreparable damages to persons.” These three conditions are coexistent and must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Likewise, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of maintaining this protection. Any other matter may only be submitted to the Court in the corresponding contentious cases2 or in requests for advisory opinions.3 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 20, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Matter of James et al., supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November