3 Commission,"closed the judicial proceedings disappearance of Mr. Castillo-Páez." into the detention and subsequent 7. On January 22, 1993, the petitioners submitted their comments on Peru's observations to the Commission. 8. On September 16, 1994, the Commission held a hearing which was attended by the parties. 9. On September 26, 1994, at its 87th regular session, the Commission approved Report 19/94, which decided in its final paragraphs: 1. To declare that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of Ernesto Castillo-Páez 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. 10. On October 13, 1994, the Commission transmitted Report 19/94 to the State. By communication of November 17, 1994, Peru informed the Commission that it had not received the report. On November 22 of that year a copy of the aforesaid Report was dispatched to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru. 11. On January 3, 1995, the State submitted, in its conclusions on the case, a report prepared by a Task Force consisting of representatives of various Government ministries. The State concluded in that report that there [was] no evidence to prove that Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez had been detained by police, and that the Peruvian State could not be held responsible for a breach of the Convention, since in the opinion of the Task Force- the remedies under domestic law [had] not been exhausted. 12. On January 13, 1995 the Commission referred this case case to the Court for its consideration and decision. IV 13. The application submitted to the Court on January 13, 1995, was sent to the State by the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat"), together with its attachments on February 9 of that year and was received by the State on February 13.