-37. Between September, 1999 and June, 2000, the applicants and the State filed several briefs with the Commission in relation to the negotiations held towards a possible friendly settlement. 8. On November 20 and 24, 2000, the State and the petitioners, respectively, requested the Commission to close the friendly settlement process. 9. On April 6, 2001, Peru submitted a brief informing the creation of a multisector negotiation committee in charge of searching for alternatives to reach a friendly settlement. On June 4, 2001, the State informed the Inter-American Commission that by means of Ministerial Resolution No. 114-2001-PCM it had decided to consider the work of the multi-sector committee concluded and “surrender the instant case to the decision the Inter-American Commission might adopt.” 10. On October 10, 2001, the Commission adopted Report No. 85/01, in which it decided to declare the admissibility of the instant case in relation to the possible violation of Articles 1(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. 11. On July 22, 2002, Peru submitted Report No. 54-2002/JUS/CNDH-SE issued by the Secretaría Ejecutiva del Consejo Nacional de Derechos Humanos (Office of the Executive Secretary of the National Council for Human Rights) on July 19, 2002, by which it stated, inter alia, that: […] it ratified the constructive acknowledgment of international responsibility asserted in the Joint Press Release of February 22, 2001, undertaking its international responsibility for the violation of the human rights of SITRAMUN workers pursuant to Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. […] considering the economic crisis the Peruvian State is currently undergoing and given the impossibility to comply with the compensations and reparations owed to the petitioners in the instant case, it feels obliged to request the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to take the appropriate actions. Likewise, it concluded that “[…] the Peruvian State submit[ted] the instant case to the best judgment of the Inter-American Commission.” 12. On October 11, 2002, the Commission, under Article 50 of the Convention, adopted Report No. 66/02, by which it concluded that: […] the Peruvian State has violated the right to judicial protection established in Article 25[(2)](c) of the American Convention to the detriment of the workers of the Municipality of Lima and the Lima Municipal Workers Union, SITRAMUN. The above also entails a violation by the Peruvian State of the obligation set forth in Article 1(1) to respect and ensure the rights established in the Convention. Likewise, the Commission recommended that the State should: adopt such measures as may be necessary to effectively comply with the judgments referred to in paragraph 37 [sic] of the […] report. 13. On October 25, 2002, the Commission notified the above mentioned report to the State granting it two months, as from the notice date thereof, to inform the Commission of the measures adopted in compliance with the recommendations.