and the need to avoid irreparable harm to persons are met. In this way, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 6. Article 63.2 of the Convention requires that, for the Court to order provisional measures, three conditions must be met: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) the need “to avoid irreparable harm to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Similarly, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of the conditions is no longer valid the Court must assess the pertinence of maintaining the protection ordered.4 7. By virtue of its jurisdiction, in the context of the request to extend the provisional measures, the Court may consider only and strictly those arguments that are directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to prevent irreparable harm to persons. Any other fact or argument may only be examined and decided during consideration of the merits of a contentious case.5 8. On October 13, 2005, the Inter-American Commission issued the Admissibility Report No. 68/05 concerning petition No. 12,271 in the case of Benito Tide Méndez, Antonio Sensión, Andrea Alezi, Janty Fils-Aimé, William Medina Ferreras, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Berson Gelin et al. - Dominican Republic, in which it concluded that “the case is admissible and that it [was] competent to examine the claim presented by the petitioners […] under the provisions of Articles 46 and 47” of the American Convention.6 9. In the Order issued on December 1, 2011 (supra Having Seen paragraph 4), the Inter-American Court decided to lift the provisional measures in favor of Benito Tide Méndez and Janty Fils-Aimé, and required the State: (a) to maintain the measures adopted and to order immediately any other measures necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of Antonio Sensión, William Medina Ferreras and Berson Gelin, for an additional period of at least eight months as of notification of said Order; (b) to maintain the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Solange Pierre, and of her children; (c) to appoint a State authority in the Dominican Republic to whom the beneficiaries and/or their representatives can have recourse in order to resolve any aspect relating to the implementation of the provisions of these measures; (d) to renew or to issue, as soon as possible, safe conducts for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures; (e) to continue the periodic meetings of the working group or team of State officials, with the participation of the beneficiaries and/or their representatives, to collaborate on the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court; (f) to designate, in coordination with the beneficiary, Solange Pierre, an appropriate person to provide protection and establish the most effective mechanism to respond to any eventuality regarding her safety and personal integrity and 3 Cf. Case of the Newspaper “La Nación”. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, September 7, 2001, Considering paragraph 4; Case of de la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 29, 2012. Considering paragraph 5. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, July 6, 2009, Considering paragraph 14; and Case of de la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra note 3, Considering paragraph 2. 5 Cf. Matter James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 20, 1998, Considering paragraph 6, and Matter of the Prison of Urso Branco. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 25, 2011, Considering paragraph 4. 6 Cf. http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2005sp/RepDominicana12271sp.htm 3