6 the facts discussed and decided by the Tribunal.” Likewise, it noted that “[n]otwithstanding the foregoing, [the Commission] will remain vigilant of the development of this delicate situation at the domestic level.” CONSIDERING: 1. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 28, 1978, and that on January 21, 1981 it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article 62 of said Convention. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention sets forth 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 regard to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. That, in relation to this matter, Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that: 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. 2. With regard to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. 3. In contentious cases already submitted to the Court, the victims or alleged victims, their next of kin, or their duly accredited representatives, may present a request for provisional measures directly to the Court. 4. That in their request for provisional measures, the representatives referred to different factual conditions, such as: a) physical aggression against persons who were declared victims in the Judgment of the case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison; b) labor restrictions; c) critical or unfavorable expressions in the media regarding some of the victims and the Judgment entered in the case; d) the attack on the monument “The crying eye”, and e) statements about the possible publication by the State of a list containing the names of 1,800 persons accused or convicted for the crime of terrorism or treason, and the negative implications that such a measure would have on the social, family and work life of the victims of the instant case. 5. That in relation to the acts of physical aggression suffered by three persons who had been declared victims of the instant case, the Tribunal observes that from the information furnished by the representatives it appears that the facts took place on November 11 and 14, 2005, and April 24, 2006. The Court has no further information or elements showing that said persons suffered other attacks or were otherwise threatened after April 2006. The Tribunal believes that, regardless of their alleged gravity, these facts, whether considered separately or within an eventual context of hostility and aggression, are not recent. Therefore, the Inter-American Court cannot conclude that they meet the requirement of “urgency” provided for in