35(a) and 37(1) of its Regulations, and articles 19(a) and 23(1) of its Statute, declare the petition inadmissible. The Commission cannot take up a proceeding for provisional or precautionary measures since no organ other than the Peruvian judiciary may rule on the merits of a case, or its ancillary issues or provisional measures, as that would constitute interference in the independence of the judicial organs of the Peruvian State and flagrant disregard for the maxim of the law that holds that the finding on the merits of a case will determine the outcome of ancillary issues." 33. The Peruvian response went on to say that under Article 139 of the Constitution now in force, no authority could take over cases pending in the courts, or interfere in the courts' exercise of their functions. Therefore, any pronouncement on the disputed issue or precautionary measures would constitute interference in the autonomy of the judicial organs of the State. 34. On September 19, 1997, the Commission received additional information from Congressman Javier Díez Canseco where he reported developments in the domestic proceedings surrounding this case. Hearing 35. On October 9, 1997, at the Commission's 97th session, a hearing was held with representatives of the Peruvian Government and of the petitioners, Mr. Enrique Elías, attorney for the victim, and the Dean of the Lima Bar Association, Vladimir Paz de la Barra. The representatives for the two sides gave their arguments. 36. The petitioners asked the Commission to take immediate action, arguing that this was one of the exceptions provided for in Article 46 of the Convention. They pointed out that the court of last resort in the instant case was having serious operating difficulties, and was either prohibited from or unable to follow the proper legal procedure, which was to serve as court of last instance and review this case. 37. Secondly, the petitioners argued that at the lower-court level something very serious had transpired, since for a variety of reasons the judge assigned to the court did not hear the case; instead, an alternate judge was named. On 15 different occasions the alternate judge had been cited for such egregious errors and transgressions as loss of case files, unlawful delays in proceedings, fraudulent notifications and others. As Secretary of the Court, he was one who would now decide the case at the lower-court level, which adversely affected due process. 38. This, in the petitioners' judgment, did not ensure the necessary guarantees of an independent, impartial and fair court. The petitioners also pointed out that the three judges presiding over the case in the court of second instance had thus far managed to drag the proceedings out for four months. A decision was handed down nullifying all proceedings in the case on the grounds that the Director of Immigration supposedly was not properly notified, which was not true because he was served on time and in the proper manner. The petitioners are seeking to have the case admitted on the grounds that guarantees of due process of law do not exist in Peru; they are also asking the Commission to seek immediate precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm from being done to the victim. 39. For its part, the Government stressed that the facts in the instant case are being litigated in the domestic courts, so that the Commission should declare the petition inadmissible on the grounds of a failure to exhaust the remedies under domestic law. 40. On October 9, 1997, the victim, Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, attached a brief to the petition he filed with the Commission against the Peruvian State, alleging that he had been stripped of his Peruvian nationality in violation of Article 20(3) of the American Convention; that his right to retain and exercise the privileges of the right of ownership, protected under Article 21(1) of the Convention, was violated when his loss of citizenship caused him to lose control over a sizeable share of his assets; that the right to freedom of the press and freedom of expression established in Article 13 of the Convention was violated when he was forced off the board of directors of "Frecuencia Latina Canal 2" television, and that his right of self-defense, to due process of law 5