2 perpetrated within the general context [supposedly] existing at present in Peru, and which will worsen if the list announced by President García-Pérez is published, expose the situation of extreme gravity and urgency of the victims who survived the May 1992 massacre.” 3. The factual conditions on which the representatives founded their request for provisional measures are as follows: a) statements of the President of the Republic, Mr. Alan García-Pérez. The representatives referred to the statements made by the President of the Peruvian Republic, wherein he allegedly announced his intent to publish a “list of 1,800 terrorists, so that everybody knows exactly who is living next door and what each of those released is doing”, and also claimed that “restrictions should be imposed on all these people because it is unacceptable for them to leave prisons to bring upheaval to the streets, to radicalize protests, to start creating terrorist or semi-terrorist nuclei again.” They also pointed out that the media affirmed that the President of the Republic allegedly made a request to “follow and film their next of kin and their attorneys to see what instructions they receive from inside the prisons.” They informed that the proposal to publish a list “has been criticized by several Peruvian jurists, who have emphasized its lack of legal viability […]”. Among these legal scholars are the President of the Judicial Branch and the President of the National Criminal Chamber on Terrorism. The representatives held that such a measure would infringe sections 69 and 70 of the Peruvian Criminal Code, which refer to the automatic rehabilitation of persons who have served their sentence or complied with the security measure imposed on them, and to the prohibition on the communication of personal background information; b) spreading references to and images of the victims of the case through the media, describing them as “terrorists” or questioning their rehabilitation process. Representatives pointed out that after the presidential announcement, a TV channel followed and filmed, without her consent, a person who had been declared a victim in the instant case, describing her as a former member of Sendero Luminoso and questioning her rehabilitation. This same program also showed unauthorized photographs and video shots of other victims of the instant case. Additionally, the representatives referred to a press article which mentioned that certain universities were allegedly spreading the “violence-oriented ideology of Sendero Luminoso (SL) and Marxism” and included the name of a person who had been declared a victim in the instant case; c) dismissals and other labor restrictions. The representatives remarked that “the social consequences derived from disclosing the background information of persons accused and detained under charges of terrorism have taken concrete form in some cases”, mainly in family and labor contexts. They held that “four […] victims […] have been dismissed from their jobs or otherwise restricted in their professional practice following the disclosure of their detention under those same charges” and that, out of these people, at least three “[to] date, […] have lost their jobs because of information obtained from different sources by their bosses and seniors, who based their decision to dismiss them [on] said information”. Likewise, they pointed out that in relation to another victim, on October 25, 2007, the Colegio de Psicólogos del Perú (Peruvian Psychologists’ Association) rejected said victim’s application to