10 1. That the request from the Government of Peru constitutes a petition to suspend the proceedings. 2. That while the Government of Peru raised this matter in the note in question, it did not say what injury has been caused by this procedural omission. 3. That in response to its express request and to honor justice, the Commission resolved to consider the objection and therefore transmitted the petitioners’ replies as requested by the Government under the provisions of Article 34(8) of the Commission’s Regulations. 4. That in its reply dated September 4, 1991, the Government of Peru made no reference to the petitioners’ replies. 5. That the Commission also examined Report 29/91 and has found that adjustments must be made in Section II thereof, which are included in the version of that Report attached hereto. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLVES: invalid. 1. To reject the argument of the Government of Peru that the report is 2. To confirm the conclusions and recommendations contained under point 48 of Report 29/91 and to transmit it to the Government of Peru so that it might respond as it sees fit within a period of 90 days. 3. To send the instant case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The sixth conclusion and recommendation contained in paragraph 48 of Report Nº 29/91 reads as follows: “[decides] to submit these cases, joined, to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, in accordance with articles 51 and 60 of the Convention,” taking into account that Peru has recognized the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. 31. On December 20, 1991, Peru responded to the Commission’s note transmitting its Report Nº 29/91, indicating that it had already replied by note of May 27, 1991, to the conclusions and recommendations of Report Nº 29/91 of February 20 of that year. The Government added that since the Commission was on this occasion transmitting a different report which nevertheless contained the same conclusions, recommendations and numbering as the previous version, the appropriate action was to ratify the terms of the note of May 27, 1991, referred to above. 32. Finally, on January 30, 1992, Peru responded to the Commission’s note of November 14, 1991, with which it had transmitted Resolution 1/91. After emphasizing that in its letter of May 27, 1991, it had not requested the reconsideration of the case, let alone its withdrawal, and that the Commission could not in good faith maintain that Peru had requested the withdrawal of that case, but, rather, had taken that action on its own initiative, Peru asserted that: Consequently, the Government of Peru considers that the Commission has exhausted its possibilities with regard to the instant case for reasons attributable, not to Peru, but to the Commission’s repeated insistence on going ahead with an irregular proceeding that is not in compliance with the American Convention on Human Rights. Hence, instead of insisting on submitting the case to the Court as it has been dealt with, the Commission should duly weigh other options within the framework established by the American Convention.