3 of Justice on the appeal for annulment of the Judgment of October 10, 1994 (supra 2.g) rendered by the "faceless special tribunal of the regular court system." 6. On February 15, 1995, the State asserted that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to consider the case due to "the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies." On March 2, 1995, the Commission, in response to the State, stated that it was not possible to raise that objection in "the situation in which a person has been tried and acquitted by the Military Court for the crime of ‘Treason against the Fatherland’ then finds himself being tried and in the process of being judged by the regular court for the same facts, under the legal title of the crime of ‘Terrorism.’ The Commission explained that the ground for its reasoning was that the proceedings in the latter instance violated Article 8(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights." 7. On March 5, 1996, the Commission approved Report No. 15-A/96 but decided not to notify Peru until the parties responded to an offer of friendly settlement, which was made the next day by the Commission in accordance with Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention." The petitioners were willing to take part in the suggested proceeding under certain conditions. The State, for its part, requested and obtained an extension to respond to the possibility but did not later respond. 8. On May 8, 1996, the Commission transmitted to Peru, Report Number 15A/96 which in the resolutory part resolved: 1. To declare that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides’ rights to personal liberty, humane treatment and a fair trial as set forth in Articles 7, 5, and 8 respectively of the American Convention on Human Rights, all in accordance with the failure to comply with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1). 2. To recommend to the Peruvian State that, in consideration of the examination of the facts and law made by the Commission, it immediately release Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides upon receiving notification of this Report. 3. To recommend to the Peruvian State that it pay compensation to the claimant in the instant case, for the injury caused as a result of the denounced facts which have been verified by the Commission. 4. To request that the Government of Peru inform the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, within a period of forty-five days, of any measures it has taken in the instant case in accordance with the recommendations contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. 5. To submit the present case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights if, within the period established in the preceding paragraph, the State of Peru does not implement the recommendations made by the Commission. 9. On July 5, 1996, by means of note No. 7-5-M/204, the State transmitted to the Commission a copy of the report prepared by a Task Force composed of representatives of various ministries of the State (hereinafter "the Task Force") in which it stated that during the processing of the case it had indicated several times that there were ongoing judicial proceedings, and that, therefore, domestic remedies had not been exhausted. Moreover, it asserted that there had been a lapse in the right invoked pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. Finally, it maintained that it was not possible to respond to the recommendations contained in Report No. 15-A/96. 10. 1). On August 8, 1996, the Commission submitted this case to the Court (supra