2 that it may inform the members of the Court during the next session, and to continue providing information on these once every six weeks. 4. To call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on the reports submitted by the State within 30 days of having been notified that these have been received. 3. The order of the Court of August 14, 2000, in which it decided: 1. To ratify the order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 7, 2000, in all of its aspects and, therefore, to request that the State adopt the necessary measures to protect the physical, psychological and moral integrity of Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur, in order to prevent her from suffering irreparable damage. 2. To request that the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights provide detailed information no later than September 14, 2000, on the situation of Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur and, as regards the State, that it also provide information on the measures adopted for her protection, as it should have done on April 25, 2000, in conformity with the order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 7, 2000. 3. To request that the State investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption of the current provisional measures and that it punish the persons responsible. [...] 4. The judgment in this case delivered by the Court on January 31, 2001. 5. The communication of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) of February 2, 2001, in which it stated that “although [...] there has been a political change in the country, the precautionary measures corresponding to the legal proceedings filed against Dr. Delia Revoredo de Mur, have still not been executed and, for this reason, it is important that these measures should continue to be maintained”. 6. The State’s communication of February 27, 2001, in which it indicated that it had executed the necessary actions to comply with the judgment of January 31, 2001, and with the provisional measures adopted by the Court on August 14, 2000. It also stated that it had take steps to eliminate the political manipulation of the Judiciary and this had created “favorable conditions for deciding the cases that are being processed” before the said organ. Furthermore, it stated that on November 17, 2000, the Congress of Peru had reinstated Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano in their functions as justices of the Constitutional Court and on February 26, 2001, a meeting had been held with the latter in order to coordinate compliance with the judgment on merits. In view of the foregoing, and considering that the presumption of extreme gravity and urgency no longer exists, it concluded that “there is currently no threat against the safety of Mrs. Revoredo” and requested that the provisional measures should be suspended in the instant case. CONSIDERING: 1. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention.