-4- 5. That International Law on Human Rights considers that provisional measures are not only of a precautionary nature in that they preserve a juridical situation, but fundamentally of a shielding nature as they protect human rights. As long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.2 6. That as a response to the precautionary measures requested by the Inter-American Commission the Court ordered provisional measures in the instant case by Order of September 21, 2005, requiring Peru to adopt all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza, his wife and three daughters, as well as his attorney Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz, taking into account the gravity of the situation and special risk conditions (supra Having Seen Clause No. 1). 7. That the Court adopted provisional measures in the instant case on September 21, 2005, taking into account that, as the factual background of the case reveals,3 the situation of Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza, his wife and daughters, as well as his then legal representative prima facie met the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency. 8. That during the proceedings conducted in relation to said provisional measures, Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza hired a new attorney and the Court, by Order of July 4, 2006, reversed the measures adopted to protect Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz. In adopting such decision, the Court considered, inter alia, that Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz had notified that he was no longer Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza’s attorney because he “had been discharged as intervening attorney in the criminal case for the crime of kidnapping” pending before the Huancayo Court against General Pérez-Documet and stated that the measures were adopted to protect his life “in his capacity as attorney for Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza.” Furthermore, the Court took into account that the information submitted by the Commission suggested that Mr. Rivera-Paz was no longer in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, nor was he at risk of sustaining irreparable damage to his rights that might serve as grounds for the Court to continue to order measures of protection in his favor.4 Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering Clause No. 4. 2 Cf. Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Considering Clause No. 4; Matter of Pueblo Indígena de Kankuamo. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 30, 2007, Considering Clause No. 5; and Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering Clause No. 5. 3 The referenced factual background is explained in Having Seen Clauses of the Order of the Court of September 21, 2005, and is mainly related to the threats and serious attacks against the life of Mr. RamírezHinostroza which allegedly occurred after March, 2004, by the time the criminal proceedings against the General of the Army Luis Pérez-Documet, retired, were instituted by the Huancayo Fourth Criminal Court for the crimes of kidnapping and injuries against, among others, Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza, who apparently ratified the testimony rendered before the Court in relation to the events allegedly occurred in February 1991. Furthermore, said factual background is related to the alleged fact that Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz, who was Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza’s counsel when the request for measures was filed, was in danger as a result of his professional tasks and direct contact with Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza. 4 Cf. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 4, 2006, Considering Clauses No. 6 and 7; and Order of the Inter-American Court of February 7, 2006, Considering Clause No. 13.