3 CONSIDERING: 1. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978 and that it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. That, at the time of the adoption of the provisional measures in the instant case on May 7, 2004 (supra Having Seen clause No. 1), the Court considered that the facts presented revealed prima facie a situation posing a serious and imminent threat to the life and physical integrity of the following members of the Gómez-Paquiyauri family: Ricardo Samuel Gómez-Quispe, Marcelina Paquiyauri-Illanes de Gómez, Lucy Rosa GómezPaquiyauri, Miguel Ángel Gómez-Paquiyauri, Ricardo Emilio Gómez-Paquiyauri, Carlos Pedro Gómez-Paquiyauri, Marcelina Haydée Gómez-Paquiyauri, Jacinta Peralta-Allccarima and Nora Emely Gómez-Peralta, as well as of Ángel del Rosario Vásquez-Chumo and the members of his family. 3. That, on October 30, 2007, this Court requested the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives of the beneficiaries to submit their comments regarding the existence and continuation of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency and potential risk of irreparable damage that would warrant maintaining these provisional measures in force (supra Having Seen clause No. 6). 4. That the beneficiaries that are members of the Gómez-Paquiyauri family requested that the State not provide them with special police protection and not interfere with the exercise of the rights of the family (supra Having Seen clause No. 4). 5. That the representatives of the Gómez-Paquiyauri family and the Inter-American Commission pointed out that the State had provided no information regarding the investigation into what happened to Miguel Ángel Gómez-Paquiyauri on January 15, 2005, when he went to the Miguel Castro Castro Prison to visit Ricardo Gómez-Paquiyauri, where prison staff allegedly harassed him by withholding copies of the Judgment delivered by this Court in the Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers (supra Having Seen clauses No. 4 and 5). 6. That, notwithstanding the alleged lack of investigation mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the information furnished by the parties reveals that in the four years that have elapsed from the adoption of these provisional measures, the Gómez-Paquiyauri family has not been the subject of threats or situations that may pose a danger to their lives or physical integrity. 7. That the Court has previously pointed out that the alleged lack of investigation on the part of a State does not constitute, per se, circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency that would warrant maintaining the provisional measures.1 8. That, irrespective of the adoption of the provisional measures ordered by the Court in the instant case, the State has an ongoing and permanent duty to comply with the general Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, Considering clause No. 4; Matter of Pilar Noriega. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering clause No. 14; and Matter of Gallardo-Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 11, 2007, Considering clause No. 11. 1