16 64. As for the friendly settlement, this Court would make the same point it made on previous occasions, which is that the Commission’s authority to encourage a friendly settlement in a case is discretionary, although by no means arbitrary. It has to consider whether such a procedure is advisable or adequate for the protection of human rights.8 In the instant case, the Commission showed that by note of February 14, 1995, it had suggested a friendly settlement in which the next of kin of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte Rivera would receive compensatory damages. The State, however, did not respond. 65. As for fulfillment of the requirements stipulated in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, this Court refers back to the reasoning given in adjudicating the first preliminary objection (supra, paragraphs 37 and 38), and considers that there was no duplication in the instant case. 66. The Court therefore dismisses the sixth preliminary objection. Objection Seven 67. The seventh objection filed by the State concerns the “Commission’s lack of standing.” 68. The State’s argued that the Commission could not issue a report on a matter in which it had previous served as a party before the Court. It further argued that the Commission could not decide a case already settled by an international organization, such as the Court. 69. The Commission’s contention was that the State’s arguments for this objection were a repeat of its arguments for the sixth objection, and referred back to its statements on the sixth objection in its brief of written observations rebutting the preliminary observations. 70. In the Court’s examination of the second, third and sixth objections, it referenced the argument made with respect to the objection now under consideration. Its earlier observations, therefore, need not be repeated here 71. The Court therefore dismisses the seventh preliminary objection. XI OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 72. Now, therefore, THE COURT DECIDES: By six votes to one, 1. To dismiss preliminary objection one entered by the State of Peru. 8. Velázquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 33, para. 45; Fairén Garbi and Solís Case, Preliminary Objections,, supra 33, para. 50; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 33, para. 48 and Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 34, para. 26.