2 Against Torture”). According to the application, these violations were suffered by Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides due to the unlawful deprivation of his liberty, following his arbitrary detention and incarceration, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, violation of the judicial guarantees, and double jeopardy based on the same facts. In its final written brief, the Commission added the alleged violation of Articles 8(2)c), 8(5) and 9 of the American Convention, and 6 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture. II JURISDICTION 2. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the present case. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. Also, Peru has been a State Party to the InterAmerican Convention Against Torture since March 28, 1991. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 3. On April 18, 1994, a petition was transmitted via fax to the Inter-American Commission relevant to the facts of this case, and on April 20, 1994, the original copy of the petition was received at the Secretariat. On August 24, 1994, the Commission forwarded to the State the pertinent parts of the petition, pursuant to Article 34 of its Rules of Procedure. 4. On September 7, 1994, the State requested that the Commission refrain from taking up the present case because “the time period for filing the petition had expired, as it had been filed after the period of six months established by Article 46(1)b. of the American Convention.” 5. On November 25, 1994, the petitioners informed the Commission that the decision of the Supreme Court of Peru regarding the appeal for annulment of the judgment of October 10, 1994, rendered by the “faceless special tribunal of the regular court system” was pending. 6. On February 15, 1995, the State asserted that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to consider the case due to the “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.” On March 2, 1995, the Commission, in response to the State, noted that it was not possible to raise that objection in “the situation in which a person who has been tried and acquitted by a military court for the crime of ‘Treason against the Fatherland’ then finds himself being tried and in the process of being judged by the regular court for the same facts, under the legal title of the crime of ‘Terrorism’.” 7. On March 5, 1996, the Commission approved Report No. 15-A/96. The following day, the Commission, in accordance with Article 48(1)f. of the American Convention, put itself at the disposal of the parties to explore the possibility of arriving at a friendly settlement, deciding not to notify them of the report until they had responded to its offer. The petitioners were willing to take part in the suggested proceeding under certain conditions. The State, for its part, requested, on April 1, 1996, an extension to respond to the possibility; however, despite having obtained the extension, it did not respond to the Commission’s offer.