before submitting this request, it would be consistent with its own understanding of the procedure to be followed in the situation described and, in any case, the State has had many opportunities to manifest its position and arguments when the Court forwarded it the Commission’s request. Consequently, the Court must examine whether the specific requirements for ordering provisional measures concur. b) Regarding the need to order provisional measures 30. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that three conditions must be met for the Court to be able to order provisional measures: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) that the purpose is to “avoid irreparable damage.” 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 If one of them is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered, without prejudice to ordering the measures again if, in the future, the three conditions are again met. In addition, although, when ordering the measures of protection, the standard of assessment of these requirements by the Court or its President is prima facie,9 the maintenance of the measures of protection requires a more rigorous evaluation by the Court of the persistence of the situation that gave rise to them.10 31. The Court has established on previous occasions that, under provisional measures, it is not appropriate to consider the merits of any argument other than those strictly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable harm to the beneficiaries. Any other matter can only be submitted to the consideration of the Court in a contentious case or in a request for an advisory opinion. 11 Furthermore, the Court has recognized that provisional measures are of a protective rather than a merely precautionary nature.12 Consequently, the Court will not refer to the observations of the Court of Human Rights of November 11, 1997; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2004, fifteenth considering paragraph. 9 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, tenth considering paragraph; Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional measures with regard to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to the United Mexican States. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2010, fourteenth considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, seventh considering paragraph; Matter of A. J. et al. Provisional measures with regard to Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, eighteenth considering paragraph, and Matters of the Monagas Detention Center (“La Pica”); the Capital Region Penitentiary Center Yare I and Yare II (Yare Prison); the Occidental Region Penitentiary Center (Uribana Prison), and the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, fourth considering paragraph. 11 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, third considering paragraph, and Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 15, 2010, ninth considering paragraph. 14