8 Legislative Resolution No. 27152 is revoked and the Executive is authorized to execute all actions necessary to annul the results that may have arisen from this Legislative Resolution, fully re-establishing the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the State of Peru. V URGENT AND PROVISIONAL MEASURES 32. On April 3, 2000, pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, Delia Revoredo Marsano requested the Court to adopt provisional measures in favor of herself and her husband, Jaime Mur Campoverde. To justify her request, she informed the Court that: a. During the proceeding she heard as a member of her country’s Constitutional Court to examine the action on the unconstitutionality of a law interpreting the Constitution of the State that would allow the incumbent President of Peru to be a candidate for a third consecutive presidential mandate, three of the seven acting justices, who maintained that the “interpretation law” was unconstitutional were dismissed and suffered “many kinds of intimidation: bribes, threats, harassment.” b. As she herself could not be prosecuted or convicted owing to her constitutional immunity, the attacks focused on her husband, and a proceeding for the alleged contraband of a vehicle, which had been filed was reopened. During this period, their property was attacked and their telephones intercepted, and there was also interference in her husband’s business activities. c. Following her dismissal as a justice of the Constitutional Court, she was appointed Dean of the Lima Bar Association and President of the Board of Deans of the Peru Bar Associations and was commissioned by civil society organizations to submit a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concerning the interference of the Executive in the constitutional functions of other State organs. As a result, she was told that her husband would be convicted “and that he would be arrested” and, she therefore went into exile with him. d. Following declarations by the President of Peru in which he referred negatively to the honor of the Murs, they decided to give up their exile and return to Peru. e. As a result of a recent public statement signed by her and other citizens in order to form a Front for the Defense of Democracy, the following events occurred: a criminal proceeding was reopened with the intention of preventing her from leaving the country, she was required to pay a surety of 20,000 soles and the public registry offices were requested to provide a list of her property so that it could be embargoed; moreover, one of her husband’s companies lost an arbitration proceeding; both the latter and the appeals that were filed were processed irregularly in order to prejudice them. f. All these acts against her had a twofold purpose: on the one hand, to deprive her of her freedom and her property, and, on the other, to prevent