3 the Court “lacks impartiality and infringes on the Political Constitution of the State, being, therefore, impossible to execute.” 3. The July 21, 1999 communication from Mr. Cézar Gaviria, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS”), to which he attached note number 7-5-M/276 of July 1, 1999 presented to him by Ms. Beatriz M. Ramacciotti, Permanent Representative of Peru to the OAS. This note expressed the position of Peru as follows: a) that the judgment of the Court seeks to invalidate and to order the modification of the constitutional and legal norms, which is beyond its jurisdiction as established by Articles 63(1) and 64(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, which only authorize the Tribunal to determine the compatibility of domestic law with the Convention, whenever the state requests it; b) that as the Court can not order Peru to modify its norms, if the State initiates a new proceeding it must apply the norms in force, those which order trial in a military court. Consequently, the Inter-American Court could declare the nullity of the proceedings and the freedom of the accused; c) that if it were to comply with the judgment of the Court, the possibility would be raised that other individuals would turn to the Inter-American system to lodge a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, despite the passage of the period of six months established by Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights; d) that the “order” of the Court to modify the Political Constitution of Peru and its domestic law, affects the sovereignty of the State, since this “order” requires the legislators to vote in a certain manner; e) that as the judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal, a request for their interpretation or clarification would not modify “their dangerous scope”; f) that the Judgment on the Merits rendered by the Court in the Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case is inconsistent with its earlier jurisprudence, issued in the Loayza Tamayo and Genie Lacayo Cases, and g) that the Court did not accord the guarantee of due process, since it admitted that in the application there were matters not contained in the report provided for in Article 50 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and it ruled on matters not included in the application and on claims made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its final arguments, making the right of adequate defense impossible for the State. 4. The July 26, 1999 writing of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”), in which it presented its observations to the June 11, 1999 Order of the Plenary Court of the Supreme Council of Military Justice. In said communication, the Commission stated that: