Belém do Pará”), to the detriment of Ms. J. Recommendations. Consequently, the Commission made a series of recommendations to the State, indicating that it should: i. Provide integral reparation to Ms. J. for the human rights violations declared in [the said] report. This reparation should include both pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects. If the victim so wishes, rehabilitation measures appropriate to her physical and mental health should be provided. ii. Conduct an investigation, in an effective and impartial manner and within a reasonable time, in order to clarify fully the acts that violated the American Convention, identify the masterminds and perpetrators, and impose the corresponding penalties. iii. Order the required administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures for the acts or omissions of the State officials that contributed to the denial of justice and the current impunity of the facts of the case. iv. Complete the process of adapting the provisions of Decree-Law 25,475 that remain in force and whose incompatibility with the American Convention was declared in [the said] report. v. Annul any expression of the exercise of the State’s punitive powers against J., in which the procedural defects of the trial held in 1992 and 1993 that generated the violations of the American Convention persist. Specifically, the State must ensure that no proceeding is held against Ms. J. that is based on the evidence obtained illegally and arbitrarily, as declared in [the said] Merits Report. d) Notification of the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State on August 4, 2011, and it was granted two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. In response to Peru’s request and its express waiver of the right to present preliminary objections on the time frame established in Article 51(1) of the American Convention, the Commission granted an extension of the time frame for the State to report on compliance with the recommendations. On December 20 and 28, 2011, the State presented a report on the measures adopted to comply with the said recommendations. e) Submission to the Court. On January 4, 2012, the Commission submitted this case to the Court “in order to obtain justice for the [presumed] victim, in view of the State’s failure to comply with the recommendations.” The Commission appointed Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez and then Executive Secretary, Santiago A. Canton, as its delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, lawyer of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers. 3. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission asked this Court to declare the international responsibility of Peru for the violation of the rights to personal integrity, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, legality and non-retroactivity, protection of honor and dignity, private and family life, and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Ms. J. The Commission also asked the Court to declare that Peru was responsible for the violation of the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Ms. J. In addition, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to order the State to provide specific measures of reparation, which are described and analyzed in the corresponding chapter (infra Chapter X). II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5