8 “lack of legal viability” (supra Having Seen paragraph No. 3(a)). Likewise, the representatives indicated that said measure would violate the provisions of the applicable Peruvian Criminal Code concerning the rehabilitation of persons who have served their sentence and the prohibition on the disclosure of criminal background information. The State, in turn, informed 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.” (supra Having Seen paragraph No. 4(c)). 9. That the Tribunal deems it appropriate to recall that, in the instant case, the Court decided that it had been proven that “all inmates located in pavilions 1A and 4B of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison at the time of the facts were treated by the press as ‘terrorists’ […], despite the fact that the majority of them had not been convicted. Similarly, their next of kin were stigmatized as ‘next of kin of terrorists.’”3 In its Judgment, the Court concluded that “[s]aid classification presented by State bodies implied an insult to the honor, dignity, and reputation of the surviving inmates who had not been convicted at the time of the facts, of their next of kin, and of the next of kin of the dead inmates that also had not been convicted, since they were perceived by society as ‘terrorists’ or the next of kin of ‘terrorists’, with all the negative consequences this implies.”4 10. That in a request for provisional measures it is not possible to consider arguments pertaining to issues other than those which relate strictly to the extreme gravity and urgency, and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons.5 11. That after analyzing the background information furnished by the representatives, the Court considers that the submitted request does not refer to a situation of extreme gravity and urgency warranting the adoption of provisional measures to avoid irreparable damage to persons pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 12. That for the same grounds, the tribunal also dismisses the alternative request submitted by the representatives. The implications of the facts reported to the Tribunal will be considered, if appropriate, at the stage, still pending, of oversight of compliance with the Judgment delivered by the Court on November 25, 2006 in the case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. NOW THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of the authority conferred upon it by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 25 and 29 of its Rules of Procedure, 3 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 1, para. 357. 4 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 1, para. 359. 5 Cfr. I/A Court H.R. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 20, 1998, Considering paragraph No. 6; I/A Court H.R. Matter of “Globovisión” Television Station. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 29, 2008, Considering paragraph No. 10; and I/A Court H.R. Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering paragraph No. 9.