10 the measures taken, as according to the Order of September 13, 1996, it should have been presented two weeks after the date of the Order. By writing of October 14, 1996, Peru requested an extension to present its Report, which was granted until November 1, 1996. 32. By note of October 18, 1996, received in the Secretariat on October 28, 1996, the State informed the Court that Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was not in isolation, according to the "Reports of the Governor and Prison Records" and was receiving visitors. In an attachment to the writing, it indicated that Ms. Loayza-Tamayo was in perfect physical and mental conditions, in accordance with the medical and psychological reports. It added that Ms. Loayza-Tamayo was doing jobs outside her cell and that she was placed in a "twoperson cell, unlike the rest of the prison population of this Establishment, who were in three-person cells for lack of space." 33. On February 3, 1997, the Secretariat requested the Commission to present its observations in accordance with point 4 of the Order of the Court of September 13, 1996. On March 20, 1997, the Commission presented a writing with its observations to the report of Peru and indicated that the situation of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo has definitely not changed since she was translated to the other block on April 19, 1996... she continues locked in her cell for 23 hours and 30 minutes per day, and is granted no more than 30 minutes in the prison court yard, which, per se, constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment and impairs the plaintiffs', psychological and moral integrity, as well as her right to respect for the inherent dignity as a human being. 34. By note of April 3, 1997, received at the Secretariat on April 10, 1997, Peru submitted comments on the brief cited in the previous paragraph, claiming that the situation it reports was false and attempted to misrepresent Ms. María Elena LoayzaTamayo's state of health, which was "stable, not to say normal for someone of her age." It further stated that it should be borne in mind that she had been convicted and must serve her prison sentence for the crime of terrorism against the State. She should therefore be subjected to the same conditions as other convicts and no special treatment could be claimed on her behalf. 35. On August 1, 1997, the Secretariat asked Peru to send at its earliest convenience the reports requested through the Order of September 13, 1996, Peru having thus far submitted only two briefs, those of October 18, 1996, and April 3, 1997. On August 28 of that year, Peru submitted some comments on the Court's request, in which it declared that it had fulfilled the requirement contained in the Order of September 13 by presenting its briefs dated October 14, 18 and 30, 1996. It went on to say that during the interrogation held in Peru in the presence of Dr. Eduardo Ferrero-Costa, the expert designated by the Court, Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, in response to a question from Mr. Oscar LujánFappiano, had said that the inmates "[l]ive together in blocks ... [in which] all the cells are the same," confirming that there were no cells for solitary confinement. 36. So far, between the submission of that information and the delivery of this Judgment, the Commission has not submitted its observations to the Court. VII 37. In the brief in which it submitted its petition and in its subsequent communications to the Court, the Commission presented its arguments, which the Court summarizes as follows: a. Peru did not respect the right to due process of law, the case having been