-33 2. To request the Government of the Republic of Peru to submit to the President of the Court, by August 25, 1997, a report on the measures taken in order to bring them to the attention of the Court at its next session. It must report particularly on whether it complied with the request for precautionary measures sought by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its note of April 25, 1997. 3. To summon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Government of Peru to a public hearing on the matter to be held at the Court on September 8, 1997, at 4.00 p.m. 5. The brief of August 25, 1997, from the State, which reported on Mr. Cesti-Hurtado's situation. It mentioned that in dealing with the remedy of habeas corpus sought by Mr. Cesti, the Special Public Law Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima had contravened the domestic laws by interfering in functions specific to the Military Court and that "had the matter been raised legally, the Supreme Court of the Republic should have [dealt with that writ]...". It further stated that Mr. Cesti has been receiving visits from his relatives, attorneys and friends several times a week since March 8, 1997; authorization has been given for a person of his choice to take him food; he is housed in a room in which he enjoys many amenities, including a television set, a radio, a computer, and adequate hygiene facilities; he makes use of the compound's recreation areas and receives regular medical check-ups at the Central Military Hospital. 6. The public hearing held on September 8, 1997, at which there appeared: for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Oscar Luján-Fappiano, Delegate, Christina Cerna, Attorney, and Alberto Borea, Assistant for the Government of the Republic of Peru: Hernánd Ñopo-Odar, Vice-Minister of Justice and President of the National Human Rights Council, Luis Reyes-Morales, Executive Secretary of the National Human Rights Council, and Luis Hurtado-Rantes, Adviser. CONSIDERING: 1. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and that it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention provides that: [i]n cases of extremity gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under its consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. That in connection with this matter, Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention.