4 list “would openly contradict the decision adopted by [the Inter-American Court] on November 25, 2006, and would irremediably prevent effective compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court, the ultimate aim of which is to restore victims to the full exercise of their rights.” In this alternative request, the representatives asked the Tribunal to: i) “[a]dopt such measures as it may deem necessary to prevent Peruvian authorities from publishing the names and photographs of [those they represent], in order not to hinder or frustrate compliance with the judgment entered on November 25, 2006”; ii) “[o]rder the State to refrain from taking any other action which may frustrate, in general terms, compliance with the above mentioned judgment”; and iii) “[r]equire the State to submit, as soon as possible, the information needed to determine and guarantee that no measures falling under any of the categories above will be taken.” 4. The brief of January 14, 2008, and its annexes, whereby the State submitted its comments on the request for provisional measures. In its brief, the State held, among other arguments, that: a) regarding the “alleged acts of aggression”, these are “past facts”, occurred in 2005 and 2006; that “the State learned about said facts [through the request for provisional measures], and, in the case of the first two alleged acts, it learned about them 25 months after they took place. The third alleged act of aggression happened more recently, but, similarly, it was communicated to the [...] Court 20 months after it took place.” Likewise, “the attention of the State is drawn to the fact that these purportedly serious events, even if confirmed, were not reported until recently, which contradicts the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that would warrant the granting of Provisional Measures […]”. Finally, it expressed that the alleged attack on Mr. Antonio Melquíades Ponce-Hilario “is not described in full” and that the furnished information does not suffice to “ascribe the fact to a State agent.” It points out that “[t]he same omissions” can be found in the description of the alleged act of aggression against Mr. Víctor Hugo Castillo-Mezzich. It noted that the facts were not denounced to competent State authorities and that they occurred before the Court delivered its Judgment. In the case of the acts against Mrs. Madelein Valle-Rivera, it held that, as the representatives admitted in their brief, a request for provisional measures regarding the same facts has already been submitted, which request was dismissed by the InterAmerican Court; b) regarding “the spreading of certain information through private means of communication”, and, specifically, in relation to the unauthorized filming of certain persons declared victims by the Tribunal and the fact that they were mentioned by means of communication, the State remarked that “they prove that in the country there exists unrestrained freedom of expression, which also allows the recording and dissemination of opinions which are different from, contrary to and critical of those expressed by some top State officials regarding the publication of the names of persons who were prosecuted or convicted for the crime of terrorism and later released.” It emphasized that “both the owners of the means of communication that broadcast the information and opinions and the journalists involved according to the request submitted to the Court […] are not related to the State”. It held that while some information and opinions may affect the sensitivity and even the honor