6 15. On March 11, 1997, the Commission approved Report 17/97, in the final part of which it stated [...] 86. That the State of Peru, on trying Jaime Francisco Castillo-Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira-Sáez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado-Saavedra and Alejandro AstorgaVáldez, pursuant to Decree-Laws No. 25,475 and 25,659, has violated the judicial guarantees set forth in Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights [hereinafter "the Convention or the American Convention"] and the rights to a nationality and to the judicial protections recognized respectively by Articles 20 and 25, all in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. 87. That the crime of treason against the fatherland which is governed by the legal order of Peru violates universally accepted principles of international law, of legality, due process, judicial guarantees, right to a defense, and the right to be heard by impartial and independent courts; and in consequence The Commission resolved [to recommend] that the State of Peru: 88. Declare the annulment of the proceedings undertaken in the Exclusive Military Jurisdiction for Treason Against the Fatherland against Jaime Francisco Castillo-Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira-Sáez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado-Saavedra and Alejandro Astorga-Váldez, and order that the trial of these persons be carried out in a new hearing in the regular courts with full observance of the norms of legal due process, and 89. The Commission, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, requests that the Peruvian Government inform the Commission within two months of any measures it has taken in the instant case in accordance with the recommendations contained in the present report, which is confidential in nature and should not be published. 16. On April 24, 1997, Report 17/97 was transmitted to Peru, with the request that the State inform the Commission of the measures adopted with respect to it within a period of two months. 17. After having requested and received an extension until July 8, 1997, the State presented a report, in which it refuted the conclusions of the Commission and affirmed the legitimacy of its proceedings. 18. On June 27, 1997 the Commission made the decision to submit the case to the Court. IV PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 19. In submitting the case to the Court on July 22, 1997, the Commission invoked Article 51(1) of the American Convention and requested that the Court render a judgment as to whether there were violations of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 20 (Right to Nationality), 29 (Restrictions Regarding Interpretation) in conjunction with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 51(2) of the American Convention.