2 complaint; that information was also forwarded to the State. The latter requested a number of extensions, which the Commission authorized. The State finally sent its answer on December 23, 1996, and requested that the complaint be declared inadmissible. The following day, Argentina’s answer was forwarded to the petitioners, who filed their reply on January 16, 1997. That reply was sent to Argentina on January 22, 1997. 3. On March 4, 1997, a hearing was held where the parties set out the facts and the applicable law. On March 6, 1997, Mr. Cantos provided new facts to the effect that the Argentine courts had made new and disproportionate demands upon Mr. Cantos with regard to payment of attorneys’ fees. He therefore asked the Commission to adopt precautionary measures. Accordingly, on March 11, 1997, the Commission requested precautionary measures to suspend attachment of Mr. Cantos’ property. 4. On March 13, 1997, the Commission made itself available to the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement and, to that end, convened a hearing for October 6, 1997. Three days after the hearing, the Argentine State reported that it could not accede to the terms of the friendly settlement proposal drawn up during that hearing. On November 3, 1997, the petitioners informed the Commission that in their view, the conditions to arrive at a friendly settlement were not present. They therefore asked the Commission to continue processing the case. That information was conveyed to the State. 5. On September 28, 1998, the Commission adopted Report No. 75/98 wherein it concluded that Argentina had violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection provided for in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention and the right to property established in its Article 21, “all of them in relation to the obligation of the State to respect, investigate, punish and re-establish the violated rights as required under Article 1(1) of that instrument.” The Commission also considered that the State had violated Mr. Cantos’ right to a fair trial and his right of petition, recognized in Articles XVIII and XXIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. In the operative part of Report No. 75/98, the Commission decides: A. To recommend that the State of Argentina re-establish all the rights of José María Cantos and, among other measures, provide adequate reparation and compensation for the above-mentioned violations […]. B. To transmit this […] report to the State and grant it a period of two months to adopt the necessary measures to comply with the preceding recommendation. In accordance with the provisions of Article 50 of the American Convention, the State is not authorized to publish this report. C. To notify the petitioners of the adoption of a report in this case under Article 50 of the American Convention. 6. The Commission forwarded the report to the State on December 10, 1998. The State, however, never offered any reply as to the recommendations adopted. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 7. On March 10, 1999, the Commission submitted its application to the InterAmerican Court (supra 1) setting out the facts upon which its case was based: