9 3. [...T]he withdrawal of the recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction takes immediate effect as of the date on which the said instrument was deposited with the General Secretariat of the OAS, that is, July 9, 1999, and applies to all cases in which Peru has not answered the application filed with the Court. Finally, the State declared in its letter that: [...] the notification contained in note CDH-11.528/002, of August 11, 2000, concerns a case in which the Honorable Court is no longer competent to hear the applications filed against the Republic of Peru, under the contentious jurisdiction provided for in the American Convention on Human Rights. 26. On October 19, 2000, the Inter-American Commission submitted a communication concerning Peru’s return of the notification of the application and its attachments. In this document, the Commission requested the Court to “reject the State of Peru’s assertion and proceed to process this case”. 27. On November 12, 2000, the Court transmitted a note signed by all its judges to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, César Gaviria Trujillo, informing him of the situation of some of the cases being processed before the Court in relation to Peru. Referring to the State’s return of the application and its attachments in the Barrios Altos case, the Court indicated that: The decision of the State of Peru is inadmissible, because the purported withdrawal of the recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court by Peru was rejected by this Court’s judgments on competence of September 24, 1999, in the Ivcher Bronstein and Constitutional Court cases (Ivcher Bronstein case, Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, and Constitutional Court case, Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55). In the opinion of the Inter-American Court, the attitude of the State of Peru constitutes a clear failure to comply with Article 68(1) of the Convention, and also a violation of the basic principle pacta sunt servanda (Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, Order of November 17, 1999. Compliance with Judgment. Series C No. 59, operative paragraph 1, and Loayza Tamayo case, Order of November 17, 1999. Compliance with Judgment. Series C No. 60, operative paragraph 1). 28. On January 23, 2001, the Peruvian Embassy before the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica transmitted a facsimile copy of Legislative Resolution No. 27401 dated January 18, 2001, published in the official gazette, El Peruano, on January 19, 2001, by which “Legislative Resolution No. 27152 [was] abrogated” and “the Executive [was] authorized [to execute] all actions necessary to annul the results that may have arisen from this Legislative Resolution, fully re-establishing the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the State of Peru.” 29. On February 9, 2001, the Peruvian Embassy before the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica transmitted a copy of Supreme Resolution No. 062-2001-RE of February 7, 2001, published in the official gazette, El Peruano, on February 8, 2001, by which Javier Ernesto Ciurlizza Contreras was appointed agent and César Lino Azabache Caracciolo, deputy agent. 30. On February 16, 2001, the Peruvian Embassy in Costa Rica forwarded a note from the agent and deputy agent, in which they advised that they had been appointed agents and gave the address to which all communications in the instant case should be notified.