9 49. On January 23, 2001, Peru’s Embassy in Costa Rica forwarded copy of Legislative Resolution No. 27.401 of January 18, 2001, in which a single article establishes the following: Legislative Resolution No. 27.152 is revoked and the Executive Power is instructed to take the necessary measures to annul any results that the said [l]egislative [r]esolution may have had; furthermore, the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is fully restored for the State of Peru. 50. On February 1, 2001, submission of the arguments and evidence having concluded, the State filed its comments on the Commission’s arguments with regard to expenses and costs. 51. On February 2, 2001, on the instructions of the Court, the Secretariat requested the Commission to forward its comments on the State’s brief mentioned in the previous paragraph and on the “supreme resolution” No. 254-2000-JUS of November 15, 2000, in which Peru “accept[ed] the recommendations formulated in the Commission’s Report [No.] 94-98 of December 9, 1998 [...]”. The comments were submitted on February 5, that year, within the time limit that had been granted. V PROVISIONAL MEASURES ADOPTED IN THIS CASE 52. On November 21, 2000, in accordance with Article 63(2) of the Convention and article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Court issued a decision in which it requested the State: To adopt, without delay, any necessary measures to protect the physical and mental health and moral integrity and the right to judicial guarantees (a fair trial) of Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, his wife, Neomy Even de Ivcher and his daughters, Dafna Ivcher Even, Michal Ivcher Even, Tal Ivcher Even and Hadaz Ivcher Even[;] To adopt, without delay, any necessary measures to protect the physical and mental health and moral integrity and the right to judicial guarantees (a fair trial) of Rosario Lam Torres, Julio Sotelo Casanova, José Arrieta Matos, Emilio Rodríguez Larraín and Fernando Viaña Villa. [...] The Court based this decision on the following consideration, among others: That the statements made by the witnesses and the expert during the public hearing on November 20 and 21, 2000, and the final arguments of the Commission, allow the Court to establish prima facie the existence of threats to the rights to personal safety and due process of Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, the alleged victim in this case, and also those of some members of his family, certain managers of his companies and other persons related to the events that gave rise to this case [...] 53. On November 22, 2000, the Commission requested the Court to expand the provisional measures ordered in order to protect also Menachem Ivcher Bronstein, Ivcher’s brother, and Roger González, who worked for his companies. 54. By an order dated November 23, 2000, the Court requested the State to “adopt immediately, any measures necessary to protect the physical and mental