7 provision that would make it possible to withdraw recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, as such a provision would be antithetical to the Convention and have no foundation in law. Even supposing a State could withdraw its recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, formal notification would have to be given one year before the withdrawal could take effect, for the sake of juridical security and continuity. Finally, the Commission petitioned the Court to find that Peru’s return of the application in the Ivcher Bronstein case and its attachments was legally ineffectual and to continue to exercise jurisdiction over the instant case.(**) V COMPETENCE A. FACTS: 25. The Commission submitted the application in the Ivcher Bronstein case on March 31, 1999. The Court forwarded note CDH-11,762/002 to the State on May 10, 1999, wherein it notified Peru of the application and sent it a copy of both the application and its attachments. The Court also advised the State that it had one month to designate an agent and alternate agent, two months to file preliminary objections and four months to answer the application. 26. By a second note of May 10, 1999, CDH-11,762/003, the Court informed the State that it had 30 days in which to designate an ad hoc judge. 27. On May 17, 1999, Peru advised the Secretariat that it had received notification of the case on May 12, 1999. On June 8, it designated its agent and alternate agent and gave Peru’s Embassy in San José, Costa Rica, as the address to which communications should be directed. 28. By note of July 16, 1999, received at the Secretariat of the Court on July 27 of that year, the General Secretariat of the OAS reported that on July 9, 1999, Peru had presented an instrument wherein it advised that it was withdrawing its declaration consenting to the optional clause in the American Convention recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. It also sent a copy of the original of that instrument, dated Lima, July 8, 1999. There, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru stated that by Legislative Resolution No. 27,152 of July 8, 1999, the Congress of the Republic had approved the withdrawal in the following terms: … that in accordance with the American Convention on Human Rights, the Republic of Peru is withdrawing the declaration whereby it consents to the optional clause recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, a declaration given by the Peruvian government at the time. This withdrawal of recognition of the Inter-American Court’s contentious jurisdiction will take effect immediately and will apply to all cases in which Peru has not answered the application filed with the Court. ** On August 27 and September 9 and 15, 1999, the International Human Rights Law Group, Mr. Curtis Francis Doebbler and Mr. Alberto Borrea-Odría, respectively, filed amicus curiae briefs, which were not formally added to the case files.