3 2. To declare that a friendly solution to the present case is inappropriate. 3. To declare that the Government of Peru has not fulfilled its obligations with respect to human rights and the guarantee imposed by Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. 4. To declare that the Government of Peru has violated the right to life recognized in Article 4, the right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 7, the judicial guarantees of Article 8 and the right of judicial protection found in Article 25, all from the American Convention on Human Rights, as a consequence of the acts which occurred in the San Juan Bautista Prison, in Lima, on June 18, 1986, that led to the disappearance of Victor Neira-Alegría, Edgar Zenteno-Escobar, and William Zenteno-Escobar. 5. To formulate the following recommendations for the Government of Peru (Convention Article 50 (3) and Article 47 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights' Regulations): a. Peru must fulfill Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention adopting an effective recourse that guarantees the fundamental rights in the cases of forced or involuntary disappearance of individuals; b. Conduct a thorough, impartial investigation into the facts object of the complaint, so that those responsible may be identified, brought to justice and receive the punishment prescribed for such heinous acts, and determine the situation of the individuals whose disappearance has been denounced; c. Adopt the necessary measures to prevent similar acts from occurring in the future; d. Make the necessary reparations for the violations of rights previously indicated and pay fair compensation to the victims' families. 6. To transmit the present report to the Government of Peru so that the latter may make any observations it deems appropriate within 90 days from the date it is sent. Pursuant to Art. 47(6) of the Commission's Regulations, the parties are not authorized to publish the present report. 7. To submit the present case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights unless the Government of Peru solves the matter within the three months allotted in the previous paragraph. 9. On June 11, 1990, the Commission notified the Government of the Resolution and informed it that the set time period would commence on that date. 10. On August 14, 1990, the Government requested an extension of 30 days to comply with the recommendations. The Commission granted the requested extension beginning September 11, 1990. 11. On September 24, 1990, the Government informed the Commission, inter alia, that the domestic legal remedies had been exhausted as of January 14, 1987. On this date the decision of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees, rejecting the appeal of the habeas corpus request (infra, para. 40), was published in Peru's Official Journal, "El Peruano." The Government concluded that Resolution 43/90 of the Commission should be declared "groundless." 12. The Commission analyzed the Government's note at its 78th Regular Session and confirmed its decision to submit the case to the consideration of the Court. II 13. The Court is competent to hear the instant case. On July 28, 1978, Peru ratified the Convention, and on January 21, 1981, it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court referred to in Article 62 of the Convention. III