Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights∗ of January 29, 2008 Request for Provisional Measures Submitted by the Representatives of a Group of Victims in the Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison HAVING SEEN: 1. The Judgment on merits, reparations and costs delivered by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Inter-American Court”, “the Court” or “the Tribunal”) on November 25, 2006, in the case of the Miguel CastroCastro Prison.1 2. The brief of December 20, 2007, and its annexes, whereby the representatives of a group of victims in the case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison (hereinafter, “the representatives”) requested “that provisional measures be adopted” requiring the Peruvian State (hereinafter, “the State” or “Peru”) “to adopt such measures as may be necessary to protect the personal integrity and security, and the honor of those [they] represented. In said brief, the representatives claimed that “[t]he specific acts of violence and harassment described in [their] request, all of which were perpetrated against persons identified by this [...] Court as victims of the above mentioned case, have become more severe since the publication of the judgment delivered on November 25, 2006.” They indicated that the facts made known to the Tribunal must be considered in the light of a “growing atmosphere of harassment against ‘released’ persons, that is, persons who were accused and detained under charges of terrorism” and who are now free. They remarked that in “the last few months, statements made by civil servants have combined with incriminating references to ‘released terrorists’ made, among others, by part of the media”. The attack on the monument “El ojo que llora” (The crying eye) is an expression of this “hostile environment”. In particular, they highlighted their concern over the statements made by the President of the Republic, Mr. Alan García-Pérez, in November 2007, who allegedly said he intended to publish a list of the names of the 1,800 persons accused and detained under charges of terrorism and treason, among whom were, allegedly, those detained at the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. They affirmed that “ever since the presidential announcement was made, public condemnation and exclusion patterns have turned harsher, as will be expounded in the description of the facts serving as a basis for [their] request.” They held that the publication of the names of survivors, in a list or otherwise, would constitute a measure “imminently endangering not only the process of social reintegration of [those people and their families] but also their physical and psychological integrity, and their security.” They pointed out that the “actual facts [which have been] ∗ Judge Diego García-Sayán excused himself from being part of the Court in the instant case, which was accepted by the Tribunal. Therefore, Judge García-Sayán did not participate in the deliberations on this Order or affix his name thereto. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. 1