2 attacks on their property and their telephones were intercepted, while there was also interference in her husband’s business activities. c. That, following her dismissal as a justice of the Constitutional Court, she was appointed Dean of the Lima Lawyers Professional Association and President of the Board of Deans of the Peruvian Lawyers Professional Associations and instructed by civil society entities to lodge a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, due to the interference of the Executive in the constitutional functions of other State organs. In consequence, she was informed that her husband was going to be convicted “and that he would be arrested,” so they went into exile. d. That following declarations of t he President of Peru in which he referred negatively to the good reputation of Mr. And Ms. Mur, they decided to give up exile and return to Perú. e. That, due to a recent public declaration, which she signed together with various other Peruvians in order to create a Front for the Defense of Democracy, the following events have occurred: the criminal act ion aimed at keeping her from leaving the country was reactivated, she has been requested t o pay a pledge of 20,000 soles and the public registries have been requested to supply a list of her property so that it may be garnished; one of her husband’s companies lost a case and both the case and subsequent appeals for review that were presented were processed irregularly in order to damage them. f. That all the previous acts against her have a twofold objective: on the one hand, to take away her freedom and her property, and on the other, to keep her from becoming reincorporated into the Constitutional Court, due to legal impediment. g. That the Government, through the judges or prosecutors, uses family or company problems to impose arbitrary judicial penalties that jeopardize the honor and freedom of the persons involved. 3. The Order of the President of April 7, 2000, in the Considering part of which it pointed out 4. That, from these provisions [of Articles 63(2) of the American Convention and 25(1) and 25(4) of the Rules of the Court], it is evident that the Court, or, when appropriate, its President, may act de oficio in cases of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The Court has already done so previously (Order of January 15, 1988, Provisional Measures in the Velásquez Rodríguez, Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales, and Godínez Cruz Cases, fourth and fifth preambular paragraphs). As the Court is not sitting, the President is authorized to adopt urgent measures de oficio in such cases of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damages to persons. […] 5. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. […] 7. That the information submitted in this case reveals a prima facie threat to the integrity of Ms. Revoredo. The standard of prima facie appreciation of a case and the