he charged that the Peruvian State had revoked the Peruvian citizenship given to Baruch Ivcher Bronstein. The petition was based on Article 53 of the Constitution, which protects citizenship; Article 6 of Law No. 26.574, which stipulates that naturalization shall be either approved or canceled, as appropriate, by virtue of a supreme resolution, the argument being that the directorial resolution was unconstitutional. This petitioner added that the violation of the Peruvian legal system was also a serious violation of Article 20(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 24. On July 18, 1997, the Commission instituted proceedings by sending a communication to the Peruvian State requesting information within 60 days and assigning the case number 11.762. Provisional measures 25. On July 28, 1997, the Commission received a note from the first petitioner and Peruvian Congressman Javier Díez Canseco, dated July 14, 1997, alleging that events had transpired at that time which had resulted in a violation of Mr. Baruch Ivcher B.'s right to citizenship. The note added information relating to the underlying motives and preambular paragraphs of the resolution that stripped the victim of his nationality. The note stated that at a press conference, the Director General of the National Police purportedly explained that "no record has been found at any office of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization to confirm the existence of the file that led to Mr. Ivcher's Nationality Document No. 004644", which was why the Director of the Service issued the resolution in question. 26. In the same application, the petitioner asked the Commission to "agree to the appropriate provisional measures", to avoid irreparable harm. 27. On July 30, 1997, the Commission sent a letter to the Peruvian State requesting that, pursuant to Article 29 of the Commission's Regulations, effective provisional measures be adopted to restore Peruvian citizenship to Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, since the latter could be irreparably harmed if stripped of it. 28. On August 26, 1997, the Commission received a letter dated August 26, 1997, wherein Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein requested a hearing with the Commission to denounce the Peruvian State's violation of his rights. 29. On September 2, 1997, the Peruvian State requested that the Commission extend the deadline for providing the Commission with information. The Commission responded by granting a 15-day extension. 30. On September 12, 1997, the Permanent Representative of Peru provided the Commission with a report on the case in question, prepared by the National Human Rights Council. There the Commission was asked to declare the petition inadmissible by virtue of articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights and the corresponding articles of the Commission's Regulations, since at the time a number of proceedings were in progress in domestic courts; were the Commission to take up the case, it would be taking over cases now pending in the Peruvian courts, as the remedies under domestic law had not been exhausted. 31. On September 18, 1997, the Permanent Representative of Peru sent the Commission a report prepared by the Council for the Defense of Human Rights, Memorandum No. 1613-97JUS-/CNDH-SE, where the State addresses the matter of the provisional measures requested by the Commission via note of July 30, 1997; in that note the State had been asked to adopt "effective provisional measures to restore Peruvian citizenship to Mr. Baruch Ivcher B." 32. That memorandum began by pointing out that the petition was inadmissible on the grounds that the remedies under domestic law had not been exhausted. Its response to the Commission's request for provisional measures was that the principles at issue in regard to the provisional measures were the same as those at issue in the merits in the case, a case being heard by the domestic courts at that time. It therefore asked that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, "based on articles 46(1)(a) and 47(a) of the Convention, articles 4