6. The briefs presented between September 8, 2009 and May 25, 2011, by means of which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “InterAmerican Commission” or the “Commission”), forwarded its observations to the State’s reports. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Mexico ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) on March 24, 1981 and in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. 2. Article 63.2 of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons”, the Court may, with respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, at the request of the Commission, adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent. This provision is also regulated by article 27 of the Court's Rules of Procedure1. 3. Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure –in its pertinent part- sets forth that: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. […] 9. The Court, or its Presidency if the Court is not sitting, may convene the Commission, the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives, and the State to a public or private hearing on provisional measures. a) Implementation of provisional measures 4. In relation to the security measures for the beneficiaries, the State informed that it had adopted several measures, including, among others, it provided communication equipment and it installed security infrastructure, it entered into the corresponding service agreements and it took steps to address the security requirements made by the beneficiaries. 5. The representatives of the beneficiaries requested the adoption of different security measures consisting in communication equipment for emergencies2, security infrastructure3, and police escort services and patrolling. In their reports, they mentioned the existence of problems with some of the adopted measures, such as 1 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court during its LXXXV Ordinary Period of Sessions, held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2 Including, among others, portable radios and mobile radio communication equipment; mobile satellite telephones; mobile telephones. 3 Including, among others, sensory lights; closed-circuit cameras; security – alarm system and security plates in different places. 2