CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on July 28, 1978, and, pursuant to its Article 62, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that “in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” This provision is, in turn, regulated by Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.1 3. 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) that their purpose is to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Similarly, the three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be applicable, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered.2 4. Based on its competence, in the context of provisional measures the Court must consider only those arguments that are strictly and directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Thus, in order to decide whether the provisional measures should remain in force, the Court must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists that resulted in their adoption, or whether new circumstances, which are equally grave and urgent, warrant maintaining them. Any other matter may only be submitted to the consideration of the Court by means of the corresponding litigation.3 5. The Court recalls that these provisional measures were granted at the request of the Inter-American Commission in the context of petition P-366-09, only in order to “permit the Commission […] to examine and rule on [the said] petition,” which was declared admissible in Report No. 151/10 of November 1, 2010.4 6. The State requested the immediate lifting of these provisional measures because the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage had 1 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 18, 2009. 2 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Certain Venezuelan Penitentiary Centers. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2011, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 25, 2011, third considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 20, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, tenth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, supra note 2, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Admissibility No. 151/10 of November 1, 2010, para. 46. 2