15 62. The Court’s summation of the State’s arguments for this objection is as follows: a) The Commission omitted the friendly settlement procedure, which it should have suggested as part of this specific case, and not as part of a separate proceeding, as in the Neira Alegría et al. Case. b) Under Article 47 of the Convention, the Commission is to find any petition that does not satisfy the requirements specified in Article 46(a) to be inadmissible; c) Report No. 15/96, approved by the Commission, is invalid under Article 19.2 of the Commission’s own Regulations. Commission members may not participate in the “discussion, investigation, deliberation or decision of a matter” if “previously they have participated in any capacity in a decision concerning the same facts upon which the matter is based or have acted as an adviser to, or representative of, any of the parties involved in the decision;” and d) Under Article 39 of the Commission’s Regulations, it shall not consider any petition when the subject of the petition “essentially duplicates a petition pending or already examined and settled by the Commission or by another international governmental organization of which the state concerned is a member.” In the instant case, the Commission has “ceased to be a deliberative body, an investigative body, and a body for discussion and settlement” since, under that provision of Article 39, it no longer has the competence to perform those functions. The State added that the Commission interrupted the processing of the instant case in 1990, in order to await the Court’s final decision in the Neira Alegría et al. Case, thus disregarding the principles of procedural economy and speed. 63. The following is the Court’s summation of the Commission’s rebuttal to the preliminary objection under examination: a) The State raised a number of objections to the same points. The State mentioned the Commission’s failure to carry out the friendly settlement procedure in the Neira Alegría et al. Case, and not in the present case, as the State contends it was required. Since the facts in the Neira Alegría et al. Case and the Durand and Ugarte case were the same, on February 14, 1995, the Commission proposed to the State that the friendly settlement procedure be instituted, with payment of compensatory damages to the next of kin of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte Rivera. The State, however, did not respond to the suggestion. Had the State been interested in a friendly settlement, it could have requested it, under Article 45.1 of the Commission’s Regulations; and b) The objection alleging duplication of proceedings is out of order. The instant case is not pending settlement in another procedure “under an international governmental organization of which the State concerned is a member,” nor does it essentially duplicate a petition pending or already settled by the Commission or by another international governmental organization of which Peru is a member.