2 1. This case was submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) by petition of January 12, 1995. The case originated in a complaint (No. 11.154) received at the Secretariat of the Commission on May 6, 1993. 2. In referring the case to the Court, the Commission invoked Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the Inter-American Convention”) and Articles 26 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure. The Commission submitted this case to the Court for a decision as to whether, with the alleged “unlawful deprivation of liberty, torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, violation of the judicial guarantees, and double jeopardy to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo for the same cause, in violation of the Convention,” and of Article 51(2) of the Convention for failing to “implement the Commission's recommendations,” the Government had violated the following articles of the Convention: 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), all these in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights). It also asked the Court to declare that the Government “must pay full compensation to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo for the grave damage -material and moralshe has suffered and, consequently, to instruct the Peruvian State to order her immediate release and make her appropriate reparation” and “pay the costs incurred in processing this case.” 3. The Inter-American Commission named Oscar Luján-Fappiano as its Delegate and Edith Márquez-Rodríguez, Executive Secretary, and Domingo E. Acevedo as its Attorneys. The Commission named the following persons as their Assistants: Juan Méndez, José Miguel Vivanco, Carolina Loayza, Viviana Krsticevic, Verónica Gómez and Ariel E. Dulitzky, the legal representatives of the plaintiff as petitioners before the Commission. 4. After the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) had made the preliminary review of the application, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) notified the State of the application in a note of February 9, 1995 -received on February 13- and informed it that it had a period of three months in which to reply, two weeks to name an Agent and Alternate Agent and thirty days to present preliminary objections, all of those periods to commence on the date of notification of the application. In a communication of the same date, the Government was invited to designate a Judge ad hoc. 5. On March 23, 1995, the Government communicated to the Court that it had appointed Mario Cavagnaro-Basile to act as its Agent and on the following day it reported that it had appointed Iván Paredes-Yataco to act as Alternate Agent. 6. By communication of March 22, 1995, the Delegate of the Commission indicated that the thirty-day deadline for the Government to present preliminary objections had expired on March 13. 7. On March 24, 1995 Peru filed a preliminary objection alleging “non-exhaustion of all domestic remedies” (capitals in original) and on April 3, 1995, it submitted a brief containing arguments to obviate interpretations contrary to its interests regarding the time limits established in the Regulations. In a brief of April 24, 1995, the Commission urged that the brief of preliminary objections submitted by the Government be declared inadmissible, and on April 27, 1995, it submitted another brief contesting the preliminary objection filed by the Government.