4. Under International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not only precautionary in nature, in the sense that they preserve a juridical situation: They are also fundamentally protective in the sense that they protect human rights in seeking to prevent irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applied provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met. Thus, provisional measures become a true judicial guarantee of a preventive nature.3 5. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that in order for the Court to be able to issue provisional measures, three conditions must be present: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”, and iii) that they seek to “avoid irreparable damages to persons.” These three conditions are co-existing and must be present in all situations in which the Tribunal’s intervention is requested. Likewise, the three conditions described must persist for the Court to be able to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them ceases to be present, the Tribunal must assess the appropriateness of continuing with the protection ordered.4 6. Based on its competence and within the framework of provisional measures, the Court must consider only those arguments related strictly and directly with extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Thus, when deciding if provisional measures are to remain in place, the Tribunal must analyze if the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or if new circumstances that are equally grave and urgent require they remain in force. Any other matter may only be brought before the Court as part of a corresponding contentious case.5 7. On October 13, 2005, the Inter-American Commission issued Report on Admissibility No. 68/05, petition No. 12.271 in the case of Benito Tide Méndez, Antonio Sensión, Andrea Alezi, Janty Fils-Aime, William Medina Ferreras, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Berson Gelim et al. - Dominican Republic, in which it concluded that “the case is admissible and [the Commission] is competent to hear the complaint submitted by the petitioners […] pursuant to the provisions of articles 46 and 47” of the American Convention.6 8. Pursuant to the Orders issued by the Inter-American Court (supra Having Seen 2), the decision was made to lift the provisional measures benefiting Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Andrea Alezy, and Pedro Ruquoy. The State was ordered to a) maintain the measures it had adopted and immediately order the measures necessary to effectively protect the life and personal integrity of Benito Tide Méndez, Antonio Sension, Janty Fils-Aime, William Medina Ferreras, Berson Gelin, and Solange Pierre, as well as the children of the latter; b) designate a State authority in the Dominican Republic to which the beneficiaries and/or their 3 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación.” Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, Considering 4; Case of González Medina and Family. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic, supra footnote 2, Considering 5, and Matter of the Unidad de Internación Socioeducativa. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil, supra footnote 2, Considering 4. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering 14; Matter of the Unidad de Internación Socioeducativa. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil, supra footnote 2, Considering 5, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of October 10, 2011, Considering 3. 5 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, Considering 6; Matter of the Unidad de Internación Socioeducativa. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil, supra footnote 2, Considering 6, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru, supra footnote 4, Considering 4. 6 Cf. http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2005sp/RepDominicana12271sp.htm 3