2 by employees working at a notary public’s office and by herself, in relation to the alleged harassment inflicted by State officials when requesting the original documents related to the expert witnesses’ reports that had been prepared pursuant to an Order issued by this Tribunal in the instant case (supra Having seen paragraph 4). Specifically, she pointed out that “the certainty that risk existed and the pressure exerted by the State during so many hours caused panic and fear for the security of those who played different roles” in the preparation or certification of the expert witnesses’ documents. 7. The communication of the State of January 22, 2007, whereby it informed that the representative “took delivery of the first certified copy of the notarial instrument without consulting anyone, and, in open contravention of operative paragraph 1 of the President’s [Order] of December 6, 2006, whereby it was ordered that the reports be sent to the Tribunal by the State, she said she had ‘sent the report by post to [the Court’s] Secretariat”. 8. The Secretariat’s notes of January 23, 2007, whereby, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the representative was required to identify, on January 25, 2007 at the latest, those who, in her opinion, were the beneficiaries of the provisional measures she had requested. Likewise, following instructions of the President of the Court, the State and the Commission were required to submit their obervations to the representative’s request on January 30, 2007 at the latest. 9. The representative’s communication of January 25, 2007, whereby she furnished the names of the persons in respect of whom she had requested the Tribunal to order the adoption of provisional measures, to wit: María del Socorro Nievas (expert witness), Germán Schenker (expert witness); Julio A. Ravioli (expert witness); Fernando Emilio Taragano (expert witness); Marcelo S. Senillosa (court clerk); José Foppoli (court clerk); Marcelo Saúl Senillosa (court clerk); Eduardo Senillosa (court clerk); Alejandra Irma Delgado (secretary at the notary public’s office); Juan Francisco Bueno-Alves (alleged victim) and his “household”, and Helena T. Afonso-Fernández (attorney). 10. The communication of January 29, 2007, whereby the State submitted its observations to the request for provisional measures (supra Having seen paragraph 6). In this regard, it expressed, inter alia, that “there are no objective or subjective elements enabling us to assert that there exist risks in relation to the life or physical integrity of the listed persons […], which situation provides enough grounds for [the] Tribunal to reject said request”. 11. The communication of January 30, 2007, whereby the Commission pointed out that “it had no observations to make”. CONSIDERING: 1. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Convention”) provides that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons”, the Court may adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, with regard to cases not yet submitted to it, and at the request of the Commission. 2. that: That, in relation to this matter, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure provides