3 join the association because the entity considered that the applicant did not meet the requirements set forth by its Code of Professional Ethics, which establishes “the duty of those who practise or intend to practise the profession to protect human rights, to contribute to the well-being of humanity [, among others]”; d) violent acts. They highlighted that the above-mentioned acts and the presidential statements have occurred in “a context of violence and harassment which has existed ever since the Inter-American system bodies began to hear the merits of the case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison.” They pointed out that several acts of physical violence against victims and witnesses of the case were registered in 2005 and 2006. They held that on November 11, 2005, a person was “almost run over” by a vehicle; that on November 14, 2005, another person was forced to get on a vehicle, severely beaten, insulted and thrown out of the vehicle; and that, lastly, on April 24, 2006, a person was attacked when leaving their house by two people who were allegedly monitoring the residence; e) other facts. They highlighted that after the Inter-American Court delivered its Judgment, pronouncements were made “against its letter and spirit” by the government representatives and private individuals, as well as discrediting statements about the victims of the case. Under these circumstances of “public hostility”, an attack on the monument “The crying eye” was reported on September 23, 2007, and it was informed that certain personalities of the Peruvian political life, among them a former presidential candidate, had allegedly pronounced themselves “openly in favor of the attack”; f) they pointed out that the victims of the case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison “are in a situation which seriously endangers their [physical and psychological] integrity and their personal security; [which situation] has worsened since the presidential announcement regarding the publication of the list of ‘released’ persons.” The representatives expressed that the adoption of measures is urgent “not only in order to avoid future attacks or acts of harassment, but also to avoid the publication of the names and photographs of [those they represent] amidst a growing and threatening campaign of constant criticism that imperils their rights”; g) based on these arguments, the representatives requested the Tribunal to order the State of Peru: i) “[t]o immediately adopt such measures as may be necessary to safeguard and protect the life, personal integrity and honor [of those they represent]”; ii) “to refrain from publishing, through any means whatsoever, their names and photographs”; iii) “to refrain from taking or promoting any actions which could endanger the personal integrity, security and honor of the persons included in this request”; and iv) “[t]o take all necessary measures to investigate, and, if appropriate, to punish the acts involving threats or intimidation which have been or could be targeted at [their] clients”; and h) alternatively, should the Tribunal consider that the requirements established by the American Convention for the adoption of provisional measures are not met, the representatives argued that the publication of the