2 this case in accordance with the provisions of the Convention; that it determine the responsibility for the violation indicated; and that it grant fair compensation to the next of kin of the victim(s)." In its final arguments (infra para. 57) the Commission added Articles 5 and 27, and deleted Article 2 from its request. 3. According to the denunciation submitted to the Commission, on June 18, 1986, Víctor Neira-Alegría, Edgar Zenteno-Escobar, and William Zenteno-Escobar were being detained at the correctional facility of San Juan Bautista, known as "El Frontón," being accused of allegedly committing the offense of terrorism. The Commission adds that as a consequence of a riot at that correctional facility on the date indicated, the Government, by means of Supreme Decree Nº 00686 JUS, delegated the control of the prisons to the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and that, as a result of this decision, the San Juan Bautista correctional facility was included in the socalled "Restricted Military Zones." The Commission further indicated that, since the date on which the Armed Forces proceeded to crush the riots, these persons have been missing; that their relatives have not seen or heard about them since; that the possibility of their being alive has not yet been given up; and that, therefore, concern is expressed for their personal safety and well-being. 4. The Commission affirms that, on August 31, 1987, it received the petition for this case, which was dated at the beginning of that month in Lima, Peru. On September 8, 1987, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the petition and requested the Government to furnish the pertinent information with respect thereto. Not having received an answer, it reiterated its request for information on four occasions (January 11 and June 7, 1988, and February 23 and June 9, 1989), advising the Government, as provided for in Article 42 of the Commission's Regulations, of the consequences of its failure to provide the pertinent information. On June 26, 1989, the Government sent a collective answer to several cases under the Commission's consideration and, on July 20 of the same year, the Commission transmitted this information to the petitioner. 5. On September 13, 1989, the petitioner submitted its comments on the Government's answer and informed the Commission that "judicial proceedings on the events that occurred at the 'San Juan Bautista' Penitentiary (El Frontón) were in progress before the Exclusive Jurisdiction of Military Justice, proceedings to which the petitioner alleges he was denied access." 6. In the memorial submitted to the Court, the Commission stated that on September 25, 1989 it held a hearing attended by the representatives of the petitioners and those of the Government where the former referred to the enormous disproportion between the seriousness of the riot and the lethal means employed by the military operation to crush it. They affirmed that the repressive zeal materialized in the elimination of prisoners who were no longer resisting or who had already given themselves up. They further insisted that inmates Neira, Zenteno, and Zenteno continued to be regarded as missing since the Government of Peru refused to provide information as to their whereabouts and fate. For his part, the representative of the Government did not make any comments. 7. On September 29, 1989, the Government informed the Commission that the case was under the consideration of the Exclusive Jurisdiction of Military Justice, for which reason "the internal jurisdiction of the State" had not been exhausted, and that "it would be advisable for the IACHR [the Commission] to wait for the conclusion of such proceedings before arriving at a final decision" on the case. 8. The Commission examined the case during its 77th Regular Session and approved Resolution 43/90 of June 7, 1990, the concluding section of which reads as follows: 1. To declare that the complaint of the present case is admissible.