5 guarantees of Article 8, and the right of judicial protection found in Article 25, all from the American Convention of 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 Víctor 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 dissappearance has been denounced; future; c. Adopt the necessary measures to prevent similar acts from occurring in the d. Make necessary reparations for the violations of rights previously indicated and pay just indemnity 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. 20. The Commission transmitted the resolution to the Government on June 11, 1990, and informed it that the time-limit specified therein commenced on the aforementioned date. 21. By a note dated August 14, 1990, the Government requested of the Commission, “because of the few days that have elapsed since the new Adminstration of Peru assumed power and pursuant to Article 34, paragraph 6, of the Regulations of the IACHR [. . .], a 30-day extension to enable it to fully comply with the Commission’s recommendations.” In a note dated August 20, 1990, the Commission granted the requested 30 day extension, to commence on September 11, 1990. 22. By note of September 24, 1990, the Government informed the Commission that, in its judgment, the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case had occurred on January 14, 1987. On that date, the judgment of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees denying the petitioners’ claim was published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano.” Peru therefore asserted that when the petition was filed with the Commission, more than six months had elapsed since the exhaustion of domestic remedies, which is the time-limit fixed in Article 46 of the Convention for lodging petitions or communications with the Commission. The aforementioned note states the following: [. . .] Consequently, the Government of Peru is of the opinion that the Commission, motu propio (sic), should have declared the petition inadmissible, pursuant to Article 47 paragraph a. of the Convention on Human Rights, which provides that the Commission shall act accordingly when: