-9- events were reported to the authorities for the purpose of effecting the appropriate police investigations; and f) “[u]p to the moment neither any clues nor any evidence have been found to back the assumption that Retired Peruvian Army Generals: Luis PÉREZ-DOCUMET (66), David JAIME SOBREVILLA (66) and Manuel DELGADOROJAS may have participated; there only exists the account and/or accusation by Luis Alberto RAMÍREZ-HINOSTOZA (31).” On November 7, 2005 the Prosecutoría Provincial de Lima (Provincial Prosecuting Office of Lima) decided to extend the investigation that “is being carried on in coordination with the aforesaid Prosecuting Bureau.” Likewise, the State is waiting for the assessment and final ruling by the Court on whether it is meet to maintain in effect the provisional measures in favor of Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza, his family and Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz — who was considered to qualify as a beneficiary of the provisional measures in his capacity as the lawyer of the party mentioned in the first place, it being worth mentioning and specifying in due course that as of this date Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz no longer represents or acts as counsel for Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza. CONSIDERING: 1. That the State of Peru has been a State party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 28, 1978, and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention establishes that: [I]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. that: That, regarding this subject, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure establishes 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. […] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention enshrines the duty that States Parties have to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 5. That, under International Human Rights Law, provisional measures do not only have a preventive nature in the sense they preserve a legal situation, but they also have a fundamental tuitive nature because the protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and of avoiding irreparable damage to