3 8. On February 11, 1998, the Commission opened case No. 11,876 and forwarded the pertinent parts of the said petition to the State, so that the latter could provide information within 90 days. 9. On June 30, 1998, having been granted an extension, the State presented its comments on the petition and requested that it should be declared inadmissible, because it considered that domestic legal remedies had not been exhausted. 10. On October 8, 1998, during the Commission’s onehundredth session, and at the request of the petitioners, a hearing was held on the case. 11. On December 8, 1998, the Commission adopted Report No. 56/98, in which it declared the case admissible. In this report, the Commission also made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. 12. On February 16, 1999, the State commented on the friendly settlement and concluded that “it [was] not opportune to refer to the possibility of reaching an [... agreement on a] friendly settlement in this case, either on the initiative of the parties or the Commission.” 13. On October 13, 2000, and November 12, 2001, hearings were held before the Inter-American Commission. 14. On March 12, 2002, the State requested the Commission to convene a hearing at its next regular session to review matters relating to the case. The Commission decided it was not necessary to hold this hearing, because it had sufficient elements to take a decision and the parties had been given the opportunity to submit their arguments and evidence. 15. On April 3, 2002, the Commission adopted Report on merits No. 36/02, in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention, in which it recommended that the State: 227. […] adopt all necessary measures to repair integrally the violations of the human rights of Lori Helene Berenson Mejía determined in the […] report. 228. […] adopt all necessary measures to reform Decree Laws 25,475 and 25,659, to make them compatible with the American Convention on Human Rights. 16. On April 22, 2002, the Commission forwarded this report to the State and granted it two months to comply with its recommendations. In a communication of June 21, 2002, Peru indicated that “it consider[ed] that the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights lack[ed] justification and, consequently, it [could] not be obliged to implement them.” 17. In view of the State’s failure to comply with the recommendations of the report on merits, the Commission decided to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. IV PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT