ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUNE 3, 1999 EXPANSION OF THE PROVISIONAL MEASURES ORDERED BY THE COURT IN THE CESTI HURTADO CASE HAVING SEEN: 1. The September 11, 1997 decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”) wherein it requested that the Peruvian State (hereinafter “the State”) adopt provisional measures for Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, as part of the Cesti Hurtado case now before this Court; 2. The observations that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) submitted on May 17, 1999, concerning the State’s seventh and eighth reports on the measures adopted, wherein it stated that Mrs. Carmen Judith Cardó Guarderas, wife of Mr. Cesti Hurtado, had to file a number of complaints because she was repeatedly harassed, threatened and followed. According to the Commission, the harassment was a consequence of Mrs. Cardó Guarderas’ defense of her husband’s rights with the inter-American system for the protection of human rights (hereinafter “the inter-American system”). The Commission therefore requested that the Court “order provisional measures to guarantee the safety” of Mrs. Cardó Guarderas and her daughter, Ms. Margarita del Carmen Cesti Cardó; 3. The documents that the Commission presented as an appendix to its request for expansion of the provisional measures ordered in the instant case, the majority being uncertified copies of a series of complaints that Mrs. Cardó Guarderas filed at police headquarters wherein she described the acts of aggression and threats to her physical safety; 4. A copy, submitted by the Commission, of an August 3, 1998 writ wherein the Mayor of Lima granted “personal assurances” to Mrs. Cardó Guarderas and her family, effective that same date, that their physical safety would be protected; 5. The brief filed by the Commission on June 3, 1999, wherein it stated that the complaints reported by Mrs. Cardó Guarderas (supra 3) demonstrated that the acts committed against her were a consequence of her active involvement in the case pending with the Court, that no serious and effective investigation was conducted into the complaints she had filed, and that the assurances given by the Mayor of