7 on the other hand, they indicate that in February 2009, Ms. Rosendo had identified “the two persons that were watching and following her from her house to her job,” (supra Considering 4.d). 14. That the State must carry out the pertinent steps so that the provisional measures ordered in the present Order are planned and applied with the participation of their beneficiaries, or their representatives, in such a manner that the measures are offered in a diligent and effective manner. The Court emphasizes that it is essential the positive participation of the State, and particularly of the representatives, with the goal of coordinating the implementation of the provisional measures in the present case. 15. That the Tribunal finds it timely to remember that when dealing with provisional measures, it corresponds to the Court to consider only and strictly those arguments that relate directly with extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument can only be analyzed and resolved during the consideration of the merits of a contentious case.9 16. The adoption of provisional measures does not imply an eventual decision regarding the merits of the existing controversy between the beneficiaries and the State,10 nor prejudges the State’s responsibility for the facts denounced. When adopting provisional measures, the Tribunal is only exercising its mandate according to the Convention, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency that require measures of protection in order to avoid irreparable damage to persons.11 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, In use of the powers conferred upon it in Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 27 of the Rules of the Tribunal, 9 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering sixth; Matters of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica"); Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center; Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center supra note 3, Considering fifth, and Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 2, Considering sixteenth. 10 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 13, 1998, Considering sixth; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2009, Considering fourth, and Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 2, Considering seventeenth. 11 Cf. Matter of James et al., supra note 9, Considering seventh; Matter of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding México. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 30, 2009, Considering nineteenth, and Case of Kawas Fernández. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2008, Considering fifth.