detailed information on the transfers and the nature of “the ‘strict measures’ that would be adopted.” 12. The brief of February 17, 2011, where the representatives presented the following updates and a request of extension of the provisional measures: a) Judge Afiuni’s health “continued to worsen severely while she was not receiving the medical care that would allow for a timely diagnosis and adequate and timely treatment.” This led to her medical examination on January 28, 2011, at a Caracas oncology hospital by hospital physicians and with the approval of the physician of her choice. She was diagnosed with several ailments and underwent surgery on February 3, 2011, in which they conducted a full abdominal hysterectomy that took place without complications. She is currently recovering post-surgery at her home. This serves as evidence of the inhumane conditions of her detention, since she was denied basic care; b) In compliance with the recommendation of prosecutors of the Office of Protection of Fundamental Rights of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, on February 2, 2011, Court No. 26 agreed on a substitute precautionary measure and ordered surgery be performed on Ms. Afiuni, and that she “be released from the Padre Machado Cancer [Hospital] and placed in her home, thereby granting this citizen [Afiuni], for health and humanitarian reasons, the precautionary measures established in article 256 subparagraphs 1, 3 and 9 of the Organic Criminal Procedural Code,” ordering the following measures:  house arrest at her own residence, without any right to exit the home;  once the beneficiary has fully recovered at her residence, and with permission from the physicians who practiced her surgery, Judge Afiuni shall appear before the Twenty-Sixth Court of Caracas every 8 days;  a strict prohibition on giving any statements to national or international media; and  a strict visitation regime for non-relatives, with a maximum of five people allowed at her residence at any given time and a one-hour time period between visits. c) while the preventive house arrest measure did “substantially improve” the inhumane conditions to which she was subjected at the INOF, the beneficiary “continues to be subjected to arbitrary detention under extremely restrictive conditions; for example, she is banned from leaving her apartment, and therefore has no direct access to sunlight;” d) Ms. Afiuni’s attorneys filed an appeal against this ruling; e) The new ban on Ms. Afiuni making statements to the media “places her in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that will cause irreparable harm to her freedom of speech” as it constitutes a “true ‘prior censorship.’” Because of this, they asked the Court to reaffirm the urgent measures issued by the President and to “extend the provisional measures to the benefit of Judge Afiuni in order to prevent any irreparable harm from being caused to her right to freedom of expression.” 13