3 Tamayo” and stated that she confirmed “all and each of [the] terms” of the request to the Court for provisional measures on December 5, 2000 (supra Having Seen clause 1). 3. The Judgements issued by the Court on September 17, 1997 and November 27, 1998 on the merits of the case and on the indemnification, respectively, and its Decisions of March 8, 1998 on the interpretation of the judgment and November 17, 1999 on the execution of the judgment. 4. The letter of November 12, 2000 of the Inter-American Court, signed by all of the Judges, addressed to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, where its was stated, inter alia, that compliance by the State “has particular effects in the case of Ms. Loayza-Tamayo who, according to truthful information received by the Court, is going through serious economic and health difficulties that could be palliated, at least in part, by the compliance of the respective judgement”. In said letter, the Court requested the Secretary General to submit the [...] communication “as soon as possible to the Permanent Council, and later, to the General Assembly of the Organization”. CONSIDERING: 1. Perú is a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978 and that it recognized the competence of the Court in January 21, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that in cases of “extreme seriousness and urgency,” and when it is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to people,” the Court will adopt the provisional measures it deems relevant. 3. Under the terms of Article 25(1) and 25(4) of the Rules of the Court, [a]t any stage of the proceeding, provided they are cases of extreme seriousness and urgency and when irreparable damage to people need to be prevented, the Court, by the powers invested upon it or at the request of one of the parties, shall be able to order the provisional measures it deems relevant, under Article 63(2) of the Convention. […] [i]f the Court is not in session, the president, in consultation with the permanent commission and, if possible, with the other judges, will require the respective government to issue the necessary urgent orders to insure the effectiveness of the provisional measures the Court might then take in its next session. 4. From these provisions it is clear that the Court or, in turn, its President, may act pursuant to the law in cases of extreme seriousness and urgency in order to prevent irreparable harm to people. The Court has done this before (cf. Velásquez Rodríguez, Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales, and Godínez Cruz Cases. Provisional Measures. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988. Series E No.1, fourth and fifth considering clauses). When the Court is not in session, its President has the authority to adopt urgent measures, pursuant to the law, in such cases of extreme seriousness and urgency in order to prevent irreparable harm to people, as it has done before (cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures. Decision of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 7, 2000. Series E No. 2, fourth considering clause).