6 under conditional liberty." They also reported that the sentence of Guillermo Maqueda expires in April 1997. 22. On December 12, 1994 the Government expressed its "favorable opinion concerning the request of the Commission" in this case. III 23. The Court is competent to hear a petition for discontinuance in a case submitted to the Court in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, which states as follows: Article 43. Discontinuance 1. When the party which has filed the case notifies the Court of its intention not to proceed with it, the Court, after having obtained the opinions of the other parties thereto and the persons referred to in Article 22(2) of these Rules, shall decide whether it is appropriate to approve the discontinuance and, accordingly, to strike the case off its list. 2. When the parties to a case inform the Court that there exists a friendly settlement, arrangement or other fact capable of providing a solution of the matter, the Court may strike the case off its list after having obtained the opinion of the persons referred to in Article 22(2) of these Rules. 3. Notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the two preceding paragraphs, the Court, mindful of its responsibility to protect human rights, may decide that it should proceed with the consideration of the case. 24. In the terms of the transcribed regulatory precept, this Court must decide whether or not said agreement is consistent with the Convention and, therefore, whether to accept the discontinuance or whether the case should, instead, continue under consideration. 25. From the records on file, it appears, that in compliance with the September 20, 1994 agreement, the Government issued Decree Nº 1680/94, which reduced his sentence and allowed the conditional release of Mr. Maqueda. 26. This Court, pursuant to the provisions of the above-transcribed paragraph 1 of Article 43 of its Rules of Procedure, has obtained the opinions of the parties in this case, including those of the representatives of the family of the victim. All of them reiterate their conformity with the September 20, 1994 agreement, as well as with the Government's compliance therewith. 27. Taking into account the above and considering that the principal matter of the case is the violation of Mr. Maqueda's right to freedom, and that this right has been restored by means of the agreement between the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the agreement does not violate the letter and spirit of the American Convention. Although, in its complaint, the Commission submitted other rights protected under the Convention, as well as mechanisms and provisions of internal law were cited, they were pleaded in relationship to the right to freedom. Notwithstanding such conditions, the Court, mindful of its responsibility to protect human rights, reserves the power to reopen and proceed with consideration of the case, should at any future time a change occur in the circumstances that gave rise to the agreement. Therefore,