8 25. On May 27, 1991, the Government pointed out to the Commission that, under the terms of Article 34, paragraphs 7 and 8, of the Regulations of the Commission, it should have transmitted to Peru the pertinent parts and attachments of the replies of the petitioners dated November 1, 1989 (Americas Watch), and July 18, 1990 (Americas Watch and Amnesty International). The Commission did not do so, depriving the country of its right of defense. In the Government’s opinion, this “invalidates the investigation and weakens the general framework of the Convention that Peru has subscribed to and ratified.” The Government affirmed: Bearing in mind the serious procedural irregularities pointed out above, the Government of Peru believes that as long as the investigation does not adhere to the rules expressly enunciated by the Convention and the Regulations of the ICHR, the necessary guarantees will not be in place to ensure that its conclusions and recommendations enjoy the minimum degree of efficacy required. The investigation of the CAYARA case, which has been rendered invalid, nullifies any other proceeding to which it could give rise and allows Peru to disqualify itself in the future from validating such acts with its participation, since it considers them to be in violation of the principles and guarantees of International Law and, especially, of those that uphold the InterAmerican Legal System. For these reasons, the Government of Peru, being a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights, requests that the Commission comply with its Regulations and the Pact of San Jose and therefore decide not to take the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights without first weighing the observations made in the present note and making the appropriate procedural corrections. 26. The Commission submitted the four joint cases to the Court by note of May 30, 1991. On June 11, 1991, the Commission’s Executive Secretary notified the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru that she had submitted “the cases in question to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (San Jose, Costa Rica) on May 30, 1991, for processing.” By note of June 20, 1991, received at the Secretariat on the 24th of that month, the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Patrick L. Robinson, addressed the President of the Court as follows: I take the liberty of informing Your Excellency that the Commission, acting at the request of the Government of Peru and in order to ensure that no questions arise as to the correct application of the proceedings, as well as to protect the interests of both parties (the Government and the petitioners), has decided for the time being to withdraw the case from the Court, in order to reconsider it and possibly present it again at some future date, after the observations submitted by the Government of Peru with regard to the instant case have been properly assessed. 27. That same June 24, 1991, the Secretariat replied to the above note from the Chairman of the Commission as follows: Acting on instructions of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judge Héctor Fix-Zamudio, I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that, after consulting with the Permanent Commission, I have been authorized to acknowledge receipt of your note of June 20, 1991, ‘relating to Report 29/91 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in connection with cases 10.206, 10.264, 10.276 and 10.446 against the Government of Peru’, in which you affirm that the Commission ‘has decided for the time being to withdraw the case from the Court....’ 28. By note of June 20, 1991, the Commission informed Peru of the withdrawal of the case from the Court and granted it a period of 60 days in which to submit its final observations. The note states the following on the issue: