3 Cruz Flores, on September 16, 1998, and it was expanded by the alleged victim in a brief dated January 26, 1999. 6. In notes dated February 27, 2002, addressed to the State and to the lawyer, Carolina Loayza Tamayo, who is the alleged victim’s representative, the Commission proposed to postpone dealing with admissibility until the discussion and decision on merits, pursuant to Article 37(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. 7. On October 14, 2002, during the Commission’s 116th regular session and at the request of the petitioners, a hearing was held at which the parties made an oral presentation of the case. 8. On March 5, 2003, during its 117th regular session, the Commission adopted Report No. 29/03 on the admissibility and merits of the case, in which it recommended to the State: That, pursuant to the provisions of domestic law, it should adopt the necessary measures to make comprehensive reparation for the violations of the human rights of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores that were determined in the […] Report [on merits] and, in particular, offer a new proceeding with full respect for the principle of legality (which cannot be characterized by discretional and flexible interpretations of criminal norms), due process and a fair trial. That it should adopt the necessary measures to reform Decree Law 25,475, in order to make it compatible with the American Convention on Human Rights. 9. On March 11, 2003 the Commission forwarded Report No. 29/03 to the parties, granting the State two months to comply with the Commission’s recommendations. 10. On May 15, 2003, the State presented a brief in which it indicated that the judgment of the Constitutional Court of “January 4, 2003 (sic),” and the legislative decrees issued by the Executive as a result of that judgment, were designed to achieve an efficient system for the administration of justice; significant progress had been made, including new proceedings with full respect for the principles of legality and due process, soon to be defined in order to give effect to Legislative Decree No. 926; in the context of these new proceedings, María Teresa De La Cruz Flores would have the right to a fair, impartial and rapid trial “in [which] to prove her alleged innocence.” 11. On June 11, 2003, the Commission decided to submit the case to the Court, “in view of the Peruvian State’s failure to comply with the recommendations contained in the report on merits.” IV PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 12. The Commission filed an application before the Inter-American Court on June 11, 2003 (supra para. 1). 13. The Commission appointed Marta Altolaguirre and Santiago A. Canton as delegates to the Court and Ariel Dulitzky and Pedro E. Díaz as legal advisers. 14. On July 7, 2003, after the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) had made a preliminary review of the application, the Secretariat notified it, together