3 and declared that she confirmed “each and every one of [the] terms” of the request for provisional measures submitted to the Court on December 5, 2000 (supra Having seen 1). 3. The judgments delivered by the Court on September 17, 1997, and November 27, 1998, on merits and on reparations respectively, and its orders of March 8, 1998, on interpretation of judgment, and of November 17, 1999, on compliance with judgment. 4. The letter of November 12, 2000, signed by all the judges of the InterAmerican Court and addressed to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, which indicated, inter alia, that the State’s non-compliance “had special effects in the case of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo who, according to reliable information received by the Court, has serious financial and health problems which could be improved, at least in part, by compliance with the respective judgment.” In this note, the Court requested the Secretary General to submit “the [...] communication to the Permanent Council, as soon as possible, and then to the General Assembly of the Organization.” 5. The Order of the President of the Court of December 13, 2000, in which he considered: [...] 4. That, from these provisions, it is evident that the Court or, when applicable, its President, may act, de oficio, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The Court has already done so (cf. Velásquez Rodríguez, Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales, and Godínez Cruz cases. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1998. Series E No. 1, fourth and fifth considering clauses). As this Court is not sitting, its President has the authority to adopt urgent measures, de oficio, in such cases of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to persons, as he has already done (cf. Constitutional Court case. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 7, 2000. Series E No. 2, fourth considering clause). 5. That Article 1.1 of the Convention indicates the obligation of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms embodied in it and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 6. That the Court is authorized to adopt provisional measures in cases of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to persons (Article 63.2 of the Convention). In this case, with regard to the requested contained in the first “having seen” clause, this implies safeguarding the personal integrity of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo. 7. That the antecedents presented in this case reveal prima facie a threat to Mrs. Loayza Tamayo’s integrity. The standard of prima facie evaluation of a case and the application of presumptions when there is a need for protection, have led this Court to order provisional measures on various occasions (cf., inter alia, Ivcher Bronstein case. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2000, fifth considering clause; Peace Community of San José de Apartadó case. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human