13 unilaterally terminated, the pertinent rules of the law of treaties must be applied. Those rules clearly preclude any possibility of a termination or “release” with “immediate effect”. 54. For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers inadmissible Peru’s purported withdrawal of the declaration recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Court effective immediately, as well as any consequences said withdrawal was intended to have, among them the return of the application, which is irrelevant. 55. Given the foregoing, the Court considers that it must continue to adjudicate the Ivcher Bronstein case in accordance with Article 27 of its Rules of Procedure. VI OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 56. Now therefore, THE COURT DECIDES unanimously 1. To declare that: a. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is competent to take up the present case; b. Peru’s purported withdrawal of the declaration recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is inadmissible. 2. To continue to examine and process the instant case. 3. To commission its President, at the appropriate time, to convene the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to a public hearing on the merits of the case, to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 4. To notify Peru and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this judgment. Done in Spanish and English, the Spanish version being authentic, in San José, Costa Rica, on the 24thday of September 1999.