5 its attachments. These officials delivered a note to the Secretariat, dated August 2, 1999, signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, which stated that: a. By Legislative Resolution No. 27,152, dated July 8, 1999, [...] the Congress of the Republic approved the withdrawal of [Peru’s] recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. b. On July 9, 1999, the Government of the Republic of Peru deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS) the instrument wherein it declares that, in pursuant to the American Convention on Human Rights, the Republic of Peru is withdrawing the declaration consenting to the optional clause concerning recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [...]. c. [... T]he withdrawal of the recognition of takes immediate effects as of the date on with the General Secretariat of the OAS, applies to all cases in which Peru has not the Court. the Court’s contentious jurisdiction which that instrument is deposited in other words, July 9, 1999, and answered the application filed with Lastly, in the same brief, the State declared that The notification contained in note CDH-11.762/002, dated May 10, 1999, concerns a case in which the Honorable Court is no longer competent to consider the applications filed against the Republic of Peru, under the contentious jurisdiction provided for in the American Convention on Human Rights. 26. On August 9, 1999, the State sent a note to which was attached a copy of the “supreme resolution” of August 3, 1999, which annulled the appointment of Mario Cavagnaro Basile and Sergio Tapia Tapia as agent and deputy agent, respectively, in the instant case. 27. On August 27, 1999, the International Human Rights Law Group submitted a brief in the capacity of amicus curiae. 28. On September 9, de 1999, Curtis Francis Doebbler submitted a brief in the capacity of amicus curiae. 29. On September 10, 1999, the Commission submitted its observations concerning Peru’s return of the application and its attachments. In its brief, the Commission stated that: a. The Court asserted jurisdiction to consider the instant case as of March 31, 1999, the date on which the Commission filed the application. Peru’s purported “withdrawal” of its recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on July 9, 1999, and its return of the application and its attachments on August 4, 1999, by Peru, have no effect whatever on the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in the instant case; b. A unilateral act of a State cannot divest an international court of jurisdiction it has already asserted; the American Convention contains no provision that would make it possible to withdraw recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, as such a provision would be antithetical to the Convention and have no foundation in law. Even supposing a State could withdraw it recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, formal notification would have to be given one year before the withdrawal could take effect, for the sake of legal certainty and stability. Finally, the Commission petitioned the Court to find that Peru’s return of the application and its attachments in the Ivcher Bronstein case was legally ineffectual,