9 [I] take the liberty of informing Your Excellency that the Commission, acting at the request of your Government and in order to ensure that no questions arise as to the correct application of the proceedings, as well as to protect the interests of both parties (the Government and the petitioners), has decided for the time being to withdraw the case from the Court, in order to present it again at some future date, after the observations presented by your Government with regard to the instant case have been properly assessed. Please find enclosed the observations of the petitioners. I would greatly appreciate your taking the necessary steps to provide the Commission with the Government’s final observations, as provided in Article 34(8) of the Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, within 60 days of the date of transmittal of this letter. 29. By note of August 26, 1991, Peru replied to the Commission, in part as follows: [. . .] From the contents of your communication it would appear that the Government of Peru had requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to reconsider the case. That is inaccurate, for at no time did Peru interpose such a motion, neither as regards the case itself nor as regards the decision to submit the case to the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court. The possibility of reconsidering a report already vacated is not contemplated in the American Convention on Human Rights nor in the Regulations of the Commission when the State in question is a Party to the Convention and has accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as is the case of Peru. This is especially true of a case that has already been previously submitted to the Court. The Government of Peru did point out to the Commission the advisability of not submitting the case to the Court, considering the serious procedural omissions incurred in the drafting of its Report No. 29/91, which are precisely those which, among others, served to buttress the decision of the full Commission to submit the joint cases. In other words, the decision to reconsider the case is unilateral and does not comply with the procedural rules in force. [. . .] 30. On October 27, 1991, the Commission approved Report Nº 1/91, which literally states the following: HAVING SEEN: 1. Report No. 29/91 adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on February 20, 1991, referring to cases 10.264, 10.206, 10.276 and 10.446. 2. That on May 27, 1991, the Government of Peru filed a brief wherein it ‘requests that the Commission comply with its Regulations and the Pact of San Jose and therefore decide not to take the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights without first weighing the observations made in the present note and making the appropriate procedural corrections.’ In that note, the Government of Peru stated that ‘In accordance with the express provisions of Article 34, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Commission’s Regulations, once the reply was received from the petitioners, the Commission should have transmitted the pertinent parts thereof and its attachments to the Government of Peru for its final observations. None of the petitioners’ replies to the Government’s notes were transmitted to the Government. Hence, by violating that procedural requirement, the Commission has denied the Peruvian state its right to self defense.’ CONSIDERING: