5 disappearance of Mr. Castillo-Páez for the crime of abuse of power. On August 19, 1991, that Court found “that the disappearance of student Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez occurred after he had been arrested by members of the National Police.” However, it also found that there was no evidence that the accused bore any responsibility and therefore declared the case closed. That ruling was appealed before the First Criminal Court, which upheld it and closed the case without punishing anyone. 19. The Commission stated in its petition that it had received the complaint on this case on November 16, 1990, and that on November 19 it had first sought information from the Government as to Mr. Castillo-Páez's whereabouts. After a number of requests to the Government on the part of the Commission for information on the case, the Government replied on October 3, 1991, stating that there was no evidence that National Police agents had detained Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez. On December 18, 1992, Peru dispatched to the Commission a copy of the ruling of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of February 7, 1991, which stated that “the case concerning the detention and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Castillo-Páez is closed.” 20. On September 26, 1994, the Commission approved Report 19/94, submitted to the Government on October 13, 1995, inviting it to report within a period of forty-five days on the measures taken in compliance with the following recommendations contained therein: 1. To declare that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez's rights to personal liberty, to humane treatment, to life and to judicial protection, as well as the judicial guarantees of due process of law embodied, respectively, in Articles 7, 5, 4, 25 and 8 of the American Convention. 2. To declare, further, that in the instant case the Peruvian State has not fulfilled the obligation to respect the rights and guarantees established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 3. To recommend to the Peruvian State that, in consideration of the review made by the Commission in the instant case, within forty-five days it conduct a new investigation of the events denounced, determine the whereabouts of the victim and identify and punish those responsible for the disappearance of Ernesto Castillo-Páez. 4. Likewise, to recommend that the Peruvian State pay fair compensation to the victim's next of kin. 5. To inform the Government of Peru that it is not authorized to publish this Report. 6. To request the Government of Peru that it inform the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, within a period of sixty days, of the results of the recommendations contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 above. 21. On January 3, 1995, the Government dispatched to the Commission a copy of a report prepared by a task force, which the Commission considered as the answer to Report 19/94. On January 13, 1995, the Commission referred this case to the Court for its consideration. III 22. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. Peru has been a State Party to the Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981.