6 For the above-stated reasons, the victim requested that the Court: a. declare the total non compliance of Peru and reiterate that it continues to be obligated, in accordance with Article 68 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to comply with the judgments of the Court, in particular in this case, independent of the withdrawal of the recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court; b. adopt urgent measures that ensure the freedom of Ms. María Elena Loayza Tamayo and the internal measures necessary for compliance with the other points of the Judgment on Reparations; c. call the attention of the States of the region, collective guarantors of the system, and of the States Parties in accordance with Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the non-compliance with the judgment; d. request that the General Assembly of the OAS consider the suspension of Peru from the organization until it complies with the judgment rendered in this case; and e. inform the various international organizations of Peru’s decision. 14. The July 26, 1999 writing of the Inter-American Commission in which it submitted its observations to the June 14, 1999 Order of the Second Transitional Criminal Court of the Supreme Court of Peru. In that writing, the Commission stated that: a. the State has not executed in a full and complete manner the November 27, 1998 Judgment. b. Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes in an unequivocal manner that the judgments rendered as a result of a contentious proceeding before the Court can not be impugned; c. the noncompliance of Peru constitutes defiance of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, which establishes the obligatory nature of the judgments of the Court and, categorically and unequivocally, the obligation of the States Parties to that Convention to comply with that which is ordered in the judgments of the Court. The alleged unenforceability of the Judgment on Reparations has its origin in Peru’s interpretation of its internal law; d. it is the duty of the State to comply in good faith with its conventional obligations; a principle that is referenced in Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; e. on ratifying the American Convention on Human Rights, States Parties undertake obligations of protection with respect to all individuals under their respective jurisdictions. From there derives the duty to comply and to oblige to comply in good faith with the decisions of the judicial organ established by this Convention;