that her accredited representative in the proceedings has all the means at his disposal to request (as he has done previously) a change of date.” 9. The Commission observed that the request made by the victim’s representative is based on: (i) "the progress of the criminal proceedings and the order summoning Ms. De La Cruz Flores to appear,” and (ii) “the importance of the continuation of the medical treatment the victim is receiving in Chile.” It argued that "both issues fall under the proceeding for the monitoring of compliance with the judgment, and [...] it is therefore appropriate that they continue to be monitored in order to ensure full compliance.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, it raised the possibility that the Court “assess most positively, among the different mechanisms available, including provisional measures, that which is most appropriate for addressing Ms. De la Cruz Flores’ current situation in order to prevent a new violation of human rights to her detriment.” b) Considerations of the Court 10. The Court recalls that in its judgment of 2004, it ruled on various violations of the American Convention that occurred in the first criminal trial carried out against the victim. In the said judgment, it ordered that the principle of legality and nonretroactivity, as well as the requirements of due process of law, be respected in the second criminal trial against Ms. De La Cruz. 11. The Court considers it pertinent to recall that the mechanism of provisional measures requires demonstrating the conventional requirements of gravity, urgency, and irreparable damage established in Article 63(2) of the Convention with regard to persons to whose favor the measures are being sought (supra considering paragraph 2). In this regard, the Court has already indicated that in accordance with the Convention and the Rules of Procedure, the burden of proving these elements prima facie rests upon the petitioner.4 12. The Court finds it necessary to obtain greater information from the parties in order to rule on the request for provisional measures. In particular, it asks for the following information to be forwarded by March 30, 2012, at the latest: Representative a) If subsequent to the National Criminal Court’s decision of December 14, 2011, the representative has requested a new postponement of the trial until Ms. De La Cruz Flores concludes her psychological treatment in Chile, and b) Details regarding Ms. De La Cruz Flores’ allegedly serious health condition. State a) Whether, in the event that Ms. De La Cruz Flores enters Peru, she would retain her freedom, and, in particular, whether there are any guarantees that “her passport would [not] be confiscated” or that she would not be “detained and taken to prison,” and 4 Cf. Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of April 15, 2010, fifth considering paragraph; Matter of COFAVIC-Case of the Caracazo, Provisional Measures with regard to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, eighth considering paragraph; Matter of Four Ngöbe Indigenous Communities and its Members. Provisional Measures with regard to Panama. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, eleventh considering paragraph, and Matter of the Colombian Commission of Jurists. Provisional Measures with regard to the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Court of November 25, 2010, considering paragraph 14. 4