4 latter informed the Commission that it believed it was inadvisable to institute a friendly settlement proceeding. 10. On October 8, 1998, at its 100th session, the Commission held a hearing on the merits. 11. On December 9, 1998, at its 101st session, the Commission approved Report No. 94/98, which was forwarded to the State on December 18, 1998. In that report, the Commission concluded that: The State arbitrarily stripped Mr. Ivcher of his Peruvian nationality (in violation of Article 20(3) of the Convention), as a means to suppress his freedom of expression (recognized in Article 13 of the Convention). It also violated his right to property (Article 21 of the Convention), his rights to due process (Article 8(1) of the Convention) and to a simple and prompt recourse to a competent court or tribunal (Article 25 of the Convention), in violation of the Peru’s generic obligation to respect the rights and freedoms of all persons subject to its jurisdiction, as stipulated in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 12. The Commission made the following recommendations to the State: A. To immediately reinstate Mr. Ivcher Bronstein’s Peruvian nationality title and restore full and unconditional recognition of his Peruvian nationality, with all attendant rights and prerogatives. B. To immediately desist from the harassment and persecution of Mr. Ivcher Bronstein and to refrain from any further actions that violate his right to freedom of expression. C. To take the necessary steps to reestablish Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein’s enjoyment and exercise of his right to own shares in the Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A. and with that restore to him all his prerogatives as a shareholder and administrator of that business. D. To indemnify Mr. Ivcher Bronstein for the material and moral damages that the conduct of the administrative and judicial organs of the State caused him. E. To adopt the legislative and administrative measures necessary to prevent episodes of this kind in the future. The Commission also decided to forward the report in question to the State and gave it two months to adopt the measures necessary to fulfill the recommendations made. 12. By note of March 17, 1999, the State requested a 14-day extension from the Commission so as to endeavor to arrive at an amicable solution to the Commission’s recommendations and stipulated that it waived its right to have those 14 days counted toward the period set forth in Article 51(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”). 13. On March 18, 1999, the Commission acceded to the State’s request and ordered that the 14-day extension was to push back the deadline for filing an application with the Court. The new deadline would be March 31, 1999. 14. When the agreed deadline for the State to show evidence of fulfillment of the recommendations passed without that evidence being produced, the Commission decided to refer the case to the Court, under the terms of Article 51 of the Convention.