ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF AUGUST 14, 2000 PROVISIONAL MEASURES REQUESTED BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE MATTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF PERU CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CASE HAVING SEEN: 1. The communication of April 3, 2000, and its appendices, in which Delia Revoredo-Marsano-de-Mur (hereinafter “Ms. Revoredo”) submitted to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the “Court”) or the “Inter-American Court”) a request for provisional measures on behalf of her husband, Jaime MurCampoverde, and on her own behalf, in connection with the Constitutional Court Case before the Court against Peru (hereinafter “Peru” or the “State”), pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention”) or the “American Convention”) and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter the “Rules of Procedure”). In this communication, Ms. Revoredo requested the Court a. That while the proceeding on the restitution of the Justices of the Constitutional Court is being heard, the Peruvian State shall abstain from harassing [her] directly or harassing [her] husband, by exercising the control and manipulation of judges and courts. b. That, specifically, the judicial proceedings filed against [her] before the Fifteenth Court specializing in the crimes included in Administrative Resolution N° 744CME-PJ – File N° 1607-2000, for the alleged crimes of misappropriation, fraud and crime against the authority to attest documents, shall be suspended until the action for restitution to [her] function of Constitutional Just ice shall have been decided. c. That the spouses Delia Revoredo-de-Mur and Jaine Mur-Campoverde shall be guaranteed their right to the judicial protection of their proprietary interests, allowing their company, Corporación de Product os Alimenticios Nacionales PYC S.A., the legal recourse of contesting in court an adverse decision of an arbitrator. 2. Ms. Revoredo based her request for provisional measures on the following considerations: a. That during the proceeding in which she participated as a member of the Constitutional Court of her country, where the action on the unconstitutionality of a law “interpreting” the Constitution of the State, which allowed the actual President of Peru to be a candidate to a third consecutive presidential mandate, was examined, three of the seven justices present, who maintained the unconstitutionality of this “interpretative law” were dismissed and suffered “all kinds of pressure: offers, threats, harassment.” b. That, as far as she is concerned, she may not be tried or convicted due to her constitutional immunity; therefore, the attacks were focused on her husband, and a proceeding that had been filed for the alleged smuggling of a vehicle was reopened. During this period, she and her husband suffered