2 Emilio Rodríguez-Larraín, witness; and Fernando Rospigliosi-Capurro, witness. 3. The final arguments stated by the Inter-American Commission during the cited public hearing (supra 2). CONSIDERING: 1. That Peru became a State Party to the American Convention on July 28, 1978, and recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to Article 62 of t he Convention, on January 21, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters it has under its consideration, adopt the provisional measures that it deems pertinent. 3. That, in the terms of Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, [a]t 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 on the basis of these provisions it becomes clear that the Court can act on its own motion in cases of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The Court has done it before.3 5. That Article 1(1) of the Convention points out the obligation that the States Parties have, to respect the rights and freedoms therein recognized, and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 6. That the depositions by the witnesses and the expert witness during the public hearing of November 20-21, 2000, and the final arguments of the Commission enable the Court to establish prima facie the existence of threats against the personal integrity and the legal guarantees of Mr. Baruch Ivcher-Bronstein, an alleged victim in the case, as well as against those of certain members of his family, certain members of his companies, and other persons related to the events that gave rise to the instant case. The prima facie case assessment standard and the application of presumptions vis-à-vis the needs for protection, have served as a basis for provisional measures adopted by this court on different occasions.4 3 Order of January 15, 1988, Provisional Measures in the Velásquez-Rodríguez, Fairén-Garbi and Solís-Corrales, and Godínez-Cruz Cases, Considering No. 4 and 5; Order of the President of the Court of April 7, 2000, in the case of the Constitutional Court, Considering No. 4. 4 (cfr., inter alia, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Provisional Measures in the Digna Ochoa and Plácido et al. Case, Considering No. 5; Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 3, 1999, Provisional Measures in the Cesti-Hurtado Case, Considering No. 4; Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 27, 1999, Provisional Measures in the James et al. Case, Considering No. 8; Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 19, 1998, Provisional Measures in the Clemente-Teherán et al. Case, Considering No. 5; Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 22, 1997, Provisional Measures in the Álvarez et al. Case, Considering No. 5; Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 16, 1995, Provisional Measures in the Blake Case, Considering No. 4; Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 26, 1995, Provisional Measures in the