6 10. By note of June 29, 1998, the State answered the Commission’s April 30 note, stating that inasmuch as the Admissibility Report had been issued, “any comment on the allegations made prior to the admissibility decision was unnecessary” and announced that it would present a report concerning the admissibility of the petition in the instant case at some future date. That information was conveyed to the petitioners. 11. On August 14, 1998, via note No. 7-5-M/402, the State replied that there was no possibility of a friendly settlement, since in its view this type of solution did not apply in this case. 12. By note of August 17, 1998, the petitioners replied to the friendly settlement proposal, indicating that the only way the case could be settled was to restore to the bench those justices who had been removed in violation of the Constitution. 13. On December 9, 1998, during its 101st session, the Commission approved Report No. 58/98, which was sent to the State on December 14 of that year. In that report the Commission concluded that: …by removing justices Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur from the bench of the Constitutional Court for alleged procedural irregularities in the clarification of a ruling that found Law No. 26,657 did not apply to the incumbent President of Peru, the State violated the essential guarantee of the Constitutional Court’s independence and autonomy (Article 25 of the American Convention); the right to a fair trial (Article 8(1) of the Convention) and the guarantee of the security of one’s position in public service (Article 23(c)). The Commission also made the following recommendations to the State: [t]hat … it make appropriate reparations to Constitutional Court Justices Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur by restoring them to their seats on the bench of the Constitutional Court and by compensating them for all income not received since the date of their unlawful removal from the bench. The Commission also decided to send the report in question to the State, which was given three months to take the necessary measures to comply with these recommendations. 14. By note of December 15, 1998, the State expressed concern over the fact that “the media were reporting” the adoption of the Report pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, as the matter ought to have been held in the “strictest confidence.” 15, On February 1, 1999, the petitioners requested that the Commission bring the case to the Inter-American Court. 16. On February 12, 1999, Peru requested an extension of the deadline so that it might continue to study the recommendations the Commission had made in its Report. On February 26, 1999, the Commission granted the State the requested extension and suspended the time periods allowed under Article 51(1) of the Convention. On April 14, 1999, the State requested another extension. Again, the Commission acceded to its request. 17, During the time periods granted by the Commission, the State and the petitioners held meetings, with the Commission’s knowledge and in its presence, in