-2Additionally, Mr. Rivera-Paz reiterated that, at present, neither himself nor the Instituto de Defensa Legal (Legal Defense Institute), represent Mr. RamírezHinostroza, and stated that the measures were granted in his favor "in his capacity as defense counsel for Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza", by reason of which "the continuation of said measures is subject to the decision of the Inter-American Court". 4. The e-mail of March 9, 2006, wherein Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza requested the Court to have communications forwarded to him through Messrs. Raúl Ramos de la Torre and Cesar Seldaña- Ramírez, his new attorneys, and included their telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. 5. The brief of April 6, 2006, wherein the Commission submitted its comments on the first bimonthly report of the State about compliance with provisional measures. Regarding the measures ordered in favor of Mr. Rivera-Paz, the Commission stated, inter alia, that "it is evident from [...the] communication [submitted by Mr. Rivera-Paz] to the Court on February 21, 2006, that they have been regularly fulfilled by two officers of the Dirección de Seguridad del estado de la Policía Nacional del Perú (State Security Board of the National Peruvian Police), who perform their duties on a one-man basis”. 6. The communications of April 25 and 27, 2006, wherein Mr. Raúl Ramos de la Torre informed that Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza had "appointed him as his representative before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights", and included a telephone number, fax number and physical address to which communications pertaining to these provisional measures may be forwarded. 7. The brief of May 9, 2006, wherein Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza included a copy of the duly signed power-of-attorney granted in favor of Messrs. Raúl Ángel Ramos de la Torre and Cesar Manuel Saldaña-Ramírez to act before the Court as his attorneys. 8. The brief of June 12, 2006, wherein the State submitted the second bimonthly report about compliance with provisional measures. In relation to the measures ordered in favor of Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz, the State remarked that "it is awaiting the assessment and final decision [...] regarding [their] effectiveness". In this respect, Peru pointed out that "in order to assess the pertinence of the continuation of [said measures, the Court must consider] that, to date, [Mr. RiveraPaz] is no longer legal counsel for nor representative of Mr. Luis Alberto RamírezHinostroza in the instant case [...], which implies that his personal situation in this respect has changed and that no link whatsoever remains with Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza”. CONSIDERING: 1. That the State of Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention provides that, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, in cases not yet submitted to its consideration, adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, at the request of the Commission.