from the country,” adopted through the National Criminal Court’s order of August 22, 2011. The representative alleged that this order was issued despite the State’s knowledge that Ms. De La Cruz “[was] not in Peruvian territory,” as she was in Santiago, Chile, receiving “medical care to treat the effects that the State’s actions have had on her health.” Moreover, the representative informed the Court that after requesting a postponement of the oral proceedings, the National Criminal Court issued an order on December 14, 2011, whereby it established “March 30, 2012, at 9 a.m. as the date of the oral proceedings,” and notified “the accused [,…] under warning of being found in contempt of court and ordered arrested should she fail to appear.” 7. The representative argued that: a) the extreme gravity of the situation results from “these warrants for her arrest and orders barring her exit from the country,” which “have caused Ms. De La Cruz to undergo a serious emotional crisis that threatens her personal integrity; for this reason, she is in critical condition, and her doctors have recommended that her recovery process not be interrupted.” The representative added that Ms. De La Cruz faces “other threats,” namely: (i) in the event she does not appear at the hearing, “she could be tried in absentia after being declared ‘in contempt of court,’” which “would limit her right to defense” and the exercise of “the minimum judicial guarantees of every defendant,” and (ii) in the event she appears at the hearing, the State could "confiscate her passport,” and she could be “arrested and taken to prison for having allegedly violated the order of the National Criminal Court of August 22, 2011, which barred her exit from the country.” Lastly, the representative stated that there is "a threat to [her] personal freedom [...], which threatens her personal integrity;” b) the urgency of the situation is related to the fact that “the arrest warrant and the order barring her exit from the country have already been issued by the State,” and in this regard, if the victim were to enter into “Peruvian territory to attend the hearing [...], she would not be able to return to Chile to continue her medical treatment as long as her legal status remained undefined, and should she fail to appear, she could be ordered arrested,” and c) it is necessary to avoid irreparable damage, "given that barring [the victim] from leaving the country or depriving her of her freedom,” would “prevent her from receiving further medical treatment, with serious consequences to her health and personal integrity, whose effects could be irreversible.” 8. For its part, the State asked that the representative’s request for provisional measures be declared inadmissible considering that: a) the request "lacks arguments demonstrating the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, and there is no risk of irreparable damage." This is demonstrated by the fact that the Special Criminal Court of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the judgment convicting the petitioner and sentencing her to 20 years in prison null and void; b) “the State of Peru is not a threat to the [protection] of [human rights],” and c) “[i]f the petitioner disagrees for health reasons with the date established for her to appear at the criminal trial against her, and believes that for health reasons she cannot return to the country, it must be taken into consideration 3