7 the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which is an indispensable condition to order the adoption of provisional measures. On the other hand, there is no evidence as to the persistence of a situation endangering the life or personal integrity of the victims and possibly causing them irreparable damage. Therefore, the adoption of the requested provisional measures is inadmissible. Likewise, the Tribunal recalls that a previous ruling in relation to one of these facts has already dismissed the request for provisional measures.2 6. That in relation to the alleged labor restrictions, the representatives held that “four […] victims […] have been dismissed from their jobs or otherwise restricted in their professional practice following the disclosure of their detention under those same charges” and that, out of these people, at least three “[to] date, […] have lost their jobs because of information obtained from different sources by their bosses and seniors, who based their decision to dismiss them [on] said information.” In this regard, the Court observes that from the evidence filed it does not appear that said persons were dismissed recently. On the contrary, after reading the testimonies attached by the representatives, it can be inferred that, at the time of submission of the request for provisional measures, all these persons were working, though they certainly agree that the publication of the list of “released persons” would have detrimental effects on their social, family and work life. From the two testimonies referring to dismissals, it does not appear that they are recent facts; rather they are vaguely described as having taken place in the past. One of those testimonies reads: “I experienced this once [, being dismissed,] when I was fired because the owner found out that I had been in jail [...], I overcame it, but it was hard”, while the other testimony holds that “after I had been released on parole, a prosecutor and the [D]ircote (Dirección contra el Terrorismo – Anti-terrorism Board) came to my work, and [the owners of the place], out of fear, fired me.” On the other hand, in the case of the person whose application to register with the Peruvian Psychologists’ Association was denied, it also appears from the relevant testimony that this person is currently working and will purportedly have a meeting with the authorities of said institution to request the reconsideration of the decision taken by the Association. As in the other cases, the Tribunal observes that the Association’s rejection of the application occurred prior to the statements concerning the publication of the list of released persons. The Tribunal notes that neither the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency nor the need to avoid irreparable damage can be inferred from these facts. 7. That in relation to the spreading of critical or unfavorable expressions through the media regarding some victims or the Judgment rendered in the instant case, the attack on the monument “The crying eye” or like facts, the Tribunal considers that while they could have detrimental effects on the victims, it has not been proved that they have led to the situation of extreme gravity and urgency necessary to adopt provisional measures. The Tribunal also observes that those who believe their private life or honor has been affected by some of those facts should be able to request protection through actions brought within the domestic legal system. 8. That in relation to the possible publication of a list of released persons, the Court notes what was mentioned by the representatives in the sense that high authorities of the Peruvian judiciary, such as the President of the Judicial Branch and the President of the National Criminal Chamber on Terrorism, allegedly confirmed its 2 I/A Court H.R. Matter of Juárez-Crussat et al. regarding Peru. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 31, 2006.