Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007 Request for Provisional Measures Case of Bueno-Alves HAVING SEEN: 1. The brief of March 31, 2006, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission”) brought charges against the Argentine Republic (hereinafter, “the State” or “Argentina”) before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Court” or “the Tribunal”), regarding the case of Bueno-Alves. 2. The communication of July 20, 2006, whereby the alleged victim’s representative (hereinafter, “the representative”) filed her brief of requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter, “the brief of requests and arguments”). 3. The communication of September 26, 2006, whereby the State filed a brief containing its answer to the application and its observations to the brief of requests and arguments (hereinafter, the “answer to the application”). 4. The Order of the President of the Court (hereinafter, “the President”) of December 6, 2006, whereby, inter alia, he requested the State and the representative to send a list of three physicians and a list of three psychiatrists or psychologists so that he could appoint expert witnesses to prepare reports pursuant to said Order. Likewise, the President ruled that “all the expenses incurred in the preparation of the [expert witnesses’] reports will be borne by the State”, as well as the cost of sending said reports to the Tribunal. 5. The note of the Court’s Secretariat (hereinafter, “the Secretariat”) of January 10, 2007, whereby the parties were notified of the President’s decision to appoint a physician and a psychiatrist of those proposed by the State, and a physician and a psychiatrist of those proposed by the representative to prepare the reports requested on December 6, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraph 4). 6. The communication of January 22, 2007 and its appendix, whereby the representative informed, inter alia, that she had been the one who had notified the expert witnesses appointed by the President pursuant to the Order of December 6, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraph 4) and the Secretariat’s note of January 10, 2007 (supra Having seen paragraph 5). Furthermore, the representative remarked that she had been the one who had taken delivery of the report (affidavit) prepared by said expert witnesses, the original versions of which she would send to this Court. Finally, she requested that provisional measures be adopted, in light of the alleged “situation of fear, ten[s]ion, anguish and uncertainty [caused] by [the] harassment inflicted on them by the State”. To support this argument, the representative recounted facts which gave expression to concerns stated by one of the expert witnesses of the case,