revictimization, which would have serious consequences for her health, […] life and future.” 6. The Commission considered that “the decision of the National Criminal Chamber […] constitutes a further act of non-compliance with the judgment of the Inter-American Court and disregards the conclusions of the Court in its Order of September 1, 2010.” Thus, the Commission considered that “it is the Court’s responsibility to assess the different mechanisms available - including provisional measures – and select the one that is most appropriate for requiring the Peruvian State to comply with the Court’s judgment in order to avoid a further human rights violation to the detriment of the victim.” In addition, the Commission noted “that, although the date of the decision of the National Criminal Chamber is subsequent to the adoption of the Order of the Inter-American Court, it is, in fact, prior to the notification of the Order, which occurred on September 22, 2010.” Thus, the Commission considered that “the decision could have resulted from the fact that the respective judicial authorities were unaware of the Court’s order.” 7. For its part, the State asked that the request for provisional measures presented by the representative be declared inadmissible, taking into account the decision of January 24, 2011, issued by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which: a) Noted that, in the order issued by the Inter-American Court on September 1, 2010, the Court considered that the second trial of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores “was not in compliance” with the provisions of the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs delivered on November 18, 2004; b) Indicated “the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court”, based on which “they must be implemented promptly and fully by the State,” and c) Consequently, “declared the nullity of the supreme writ of execution of November 23, 2009,” and “annulled the location and arrest order” for Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, “to take effect on that day for the corresponding entities.” 8. In response to the information submitted by the State, the representative indicated, “that she had not been notified of the decision of the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of January 24, 2011.” In this regard, she noted that, “in order to have legal effect in Peru and, consequently, not constitute a serious and urgent threat against Mrs. De La Cruz, it should not only be notified to her, but also copies should be attached of the official notes sent to the Peruvian police authorities advising that the national and international detention and arrest order for Mrs. De La Cruz had been annulled.” For its part, the Inter-American Commission “assessed positively” the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on January 24, 2011, and “considered it pertinent that the State submit the supporting documentation to the Court confirming that, in practice, the necessary measures have been adopted in relation to the authorities involved to ensure that the supreme writ of execution of November 23, 2009, will have no effects on Mrs. De La Cruz’s situation.” 9. In this regard, the State forwarded copies of official notes No. 230-2011-SSPT-CS and No. 231-2011-S-SPT-CS of January 24, 2011, in which the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice requested the Head of INTERPOL-Lima and the Head of the Requisition Division of the Judicial Police, respectively, to “annul the national and international orders for the location and arrest” of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores. In addition, the State indicated that “the notification procedure is within the period established in the Notification 3