2 2. The Commission submitted the application for the Court to decide whether Peru was responsible for violating Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25(1) (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and also for failing to comply with the provisions of Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof. The facts set forth in the application refer to the alleged “dismissal of a group of 257 employees from the National Congress of the Republic of Peru[,…] who are part of a group of 1,117 employees who were dismissed [from this institution] by Resolutions adopted by Congress on December 31, 1992.” 3. The Commission also asked the Court, in accordance with Article 63(1) of the Convention, to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation indicated in the application. Finally, it requested the Court to order the State to pay the costs and expenses arising from processing the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before the organs of the inter-American system. II JURISDICTION 4. The Court is competent to hear this case, in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, because Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On October 18, 1997, the Commission received a request for precautionary measures from five of the alleged victims: Ángela Valdez Rivera, Adolfo Fernández Saré, Roberto Ribotte Rodríguez, María Huaranga Soto and Manuel Carranza Rodríguez. 6. On November 10, 1997 the Commission began “to process [the] petition […], identified as number” 11,830, forwarded the pertinent parts to the State and requested it to provide information within 90 days, in accordance with its Rules of Procedure in force at the time. On January 26, 1998, Peru responded to this communication. 7. On February 13, 1998, the Commission informed the petitioners, inter alia, that, according to Article 29 of its Rules of Procedure, the situation described “[i]n principle […] d[id] not constitute an urgent case in which it [was] necessary to request precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm to persons.” 8. On March 26, 1998, Adolfo Fernández Saré and another 126 persons, 124 of them alleged victims in this case, presented a petition to the Commission within the framework of case No. 11,830, based on the same facts as those contained in the request for precautionary measures (supra para. 5). 9. On July 10, 1998, 20 persons presented another petition to the Commission, on their own behalf and on behalf of “other employees dismissed from the Peruvian Congress.”