7 a) There is no arrest warrant against Mrs. Loayza Tamayo and there never was one, so that she is free to return to the country when she considers it appropriate; it also expresses its “willingness to grant the said citizen the necessary guarantees and measures that her physical safety, mental health and moral integrity will not be harmed”; and b) Peru “is taking the pertinent measures to comply with the provisions of the judgment issued by the Court” in relation to Mrs. Loayza Tamayo. CONSIDERING: 1. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and that it recognized the competence of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. That Article 63.2 of the American Convention provides that, in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damages to persons”, the Court may, in matters submitted to its consideration, take the provisional measures that it considers pertinent. 3. That, in the terms of Article 25.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: [a]t any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63.2 of the Convention. 4. That Article 1.1 of the Convention indicates the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms embodied in it and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That the Court is authorized to adopt provisional measures in cases of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damages to persons (Article 63.2 of the Convention). In this case, with regard to the request contained in “the first having seen paragraph”, this implies safeguarding the personal safety of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo. 6. That the antecedents submitted in this case reveal prima facie a threat to Mrs. Loayza Tamayo’s safety. The standard of prima facie appreciation of a case and the application of presumptions in the face of the need for protection have led this Court to order provisional measures on several occasions1. 1 Cf. inter alia, Paniagua Morales et al. case Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 29, 2001, seventh considering clause; Loayza Tamayo case. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 13, 2000, seventh considering clause; Ivcher Bronstein case. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2000, fifth considering clause; The Peace Community of San José de Apartadó case. Provisional Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 9, 2000, fourth considering clause; Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic case. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000, fifth and ninth considering clauses; Constitutional Court case. Provisional Measures.