5 of certain people, requesting the Tribunal to order the adoption of measures directly or indirectly restricting the freedom of expression of private individuals in a State Party to the Convention would be unconducive to the protection of the very victims’ human rights; c) regarding the “publication of the list of persons released after having been prosecuted or convicted for the crime of terrorism”, the State pointed out that “it has taken no decision [regarding this matter] and that in the last few weeks no further statements have been made in this sense. Therefore, the context described has changed.” d) regarding “[t]he alleged adverse labor or professional measures taken to the detriment of the four beneficiaries of the judgment of the Inter-American Court”, the State remarked that the representatives’ brief “does not provide enough information to assess whether there exists a causal relationship between the context and the facts described, which allegedly led to a very grave and urgent situation that could cause irreparable damage to persons. Without these basic elements, the State finds itself unable to make a pronouncement”. Specifically, as regards the decision made by the Peruvian Psychologists’ Association in one of the cases, the State expressed that “it is an act performed by an autonomous non-state entity”, and that it is the association itself that defines the requirements and conditions for the admission of new members. It also remarked that the pronouncement of the Psychologists’ Association was made before certain State officials declared the possibility of publishing a list of released persons; e) regarding the attack on the monument “The crying eye”, it emphasized that the representatives, in their brief, “omitted the fact that this regrettable event took place more than two months before certain officials made the statements believed by the victims’ representatives to have generated a situation of extreme gravity and urgency detrimental to their clients”, and that “as regards the statements made by a former presidential candidate, that is, a private individual, they not only fail to reflect the official stance of the State but also come from a member of a political sector that opposes the Government […]”; and f) based on these arguments, the State requested the Court not to order the adoption of provisional measures, inasmuch as it considers that “no situation of extreme gravity and urgency exists that makes it necessary to adopt protection measures […] with a view to safeguarding the personal integrity, security, and the honor of the victims in the case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison.” 5. The brief of January 18, 2008, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted its comments on the request for provisional measures. In said brief, the Commission held that “it [had taken] cognizance of the important information furnished by the representatives regarding this situation. Nonetheless, it considered that some of the referred matters could be discussed within the context of the oversight of compliance with the judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court on November 25, 2006, and that other matters do not necessarily bear direct relation to