4 Government, by Supreme Decree Number 006-86-JUS, placed the prison under the control of the Joint Staff of the Armed Forces. The penitentiary thus became a restricted military zone. Since that time, that is, the date on which the Armed Forces took action to put down the mutiny, the persons listed above have dissappeared; their next of kin have never seen or heard from them again. 15. The June 18, 1986 record drawn up by the authorities of the National Penitenciary Institute, whose powers over that prison were suspended pursuant to the aforementioned Supreme Decree, certifies that on that date there were 152 detainees in the San Juan Bautista Prison, all of them alive. The three detainees identified in the petition were among this number. 16. On September 8, 1987, the Commission admitted the petition, acknowledged receipt thereof and requested pertinent information from the Government, including information bearing on the question of whether domestic remedies had been exhausted. When the Peruvian Government failed to reply, the Commission repeated its request for information four times (January 11 and June 7, 1988, February 23 and June 9, 1989), in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 42 of its Regulations. On June 26, 1989, the Peruvian Government sent the Commission a general reply that referred to several cases pending before that body. The Government did not, however, specifically address the matter of exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case. 17. On September 25, 1989, the Commission conducted a hearing which was attended by representatives of the petitioners and of the Government. The former provided details about the events that took place in El Frontón on June 18 and 19, 1986, and particularly about the way in which the uprising was suppressed. The representatives of the Government, however, refrained from making any observations. 18. On September 29, 1989, the Government communication. It reads in part as follows: sent the Commission a As for [case] 10.078, [which], as is public knowledge, is currently being dealt with by the Special Military Tribunal of Peru in accordance with the laws in force, it must be pointed out that the State’s domestic jurisdiction has not been exhausted. Consequently, it would be advisable for the IACHR to await the final outcome of [this case] before making a definitive decision. 19. The Commission examined the instant case during its 77th Regular Session and approved Resolution N° 43/90 of June 7, 1990, the operative part of which reads as follows: 1. To declare that the complaint of the present case is admissible. 2. To declare that a friendly solution to the present case is inappropriate. 3. To declare that the Government of Peru has not fulfilled its obligations with respect to human rights and the guarantee imposed by Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. 4. To declare that the Government of Peru has violated the right to life recognized in Article 4, the right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 7, the judicial