4. In cases where delay may cause damage to the right holder which is difficult to calculate, or in cases where there is a proven risk that delay may lead to the loss of evidence related to the infringement, the Court may adopt any of the procedures stipulated in subparagraph (a) of this Article on a provisional basis without notifying the defendant and in his absence. The defendant shall be notified of the procedures adopted by the Court as soon as the procedure is implemented. The defendant may request a hearing within a reasonable period after his notification of the procedure. The Court shall decide to confirm, amend or nullify the provisional measure at the time of the hearing. 5. The request for application of provisional measures provided for in subparagraphs (c) and (d) of this Article must be accompanied by an adequate monetary guarantee to prevent abuse and to guarantee any damages which may occur to the defendant if the plaintiff is not justified in his claim. 6. Upon request of the defendant, the provisional measures applied prior to the filing of a lawsuit under subparagraphs (c) and (d) of this Article shall be nullified if the lawsuit is not filed within eight days from the date on which the Court issued the decision to apply the provisional measures. 7. In cases where the provisional measures applied in accordance with subparagraphs (c) and (d) of this Article are nullified due to a lapse of the filing period of the lawsuit, the default of the claimant, or based on evidence that there is no infringement or threat of infringement, the court may, upon the request of the defendant, order adequate compensation for the damages resulting from these procedures. 8. The Court may order the claimant who acted abusively in requesting any of the procedures listed in this article to adequately compensate the party against whom the procedures were taken for damages incurred as a result this abuse.” 24) Article 47 is amended to read follows: “In no case shall buildings and what they have in or on them of engravings, drawings, ornamentations or geometrical shapes be subject to seizure. Furthermore, no ruling shall order their destruction, the change of their features, or their confiscation for the purpose of safeguarding the copyrights of the architect whose designs were used for the building and whose drawings were put in them illegally. This shall not violate his right in obtaining fair compensation for the foregoing.” 9 CPA/ORD/ 29 April 2004/83