8 2. On July 9, 1999, the Government of the Republic of Peru deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States the instrument wherein it declares that, pursuant to the American Convention on Human Rights, the Republic of Peru is withdrawing the declaration consenting to the optional clause concerning recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights… 3. … The withdrawal of recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction takes immediate effect as of the date on which that instrument is deposited with the General Secretariat of the OAS, in other words, July 9, 1999, and applies to all cases in which Peru has not answered the application filed with the Court. Lastly, in that same brief the State wrote that: “…the notification contained in note CDH-11,760/002, dated July 12, 1999, concerns a case in which that Honorable Court is no longer competent to consider the applications filed against the Republic of Peru under the contentious jurisdiction provided for in the American Convention on Human Rights.” 24. On September 10, 1999, the Commission submitted its observations concerning Peru’s return of the application and its attachments. In its brief, the Commission stated the following: a. The Court asserted jurisdiction to consider the instant case as of July 2, 1999, the dated on which the Commission filed the application. Peru’s purported “withdrawal” of its recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on July 9, 1999, and its return of the application and its attachments on July 16, 1999, have no effect whatever on the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in the instant case. b. A unilateral action by a State cannot divest an international court of jurisdiction it has already asserted; the American Convention contains no 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 Constitutional Court 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 Constitutional Court case on July 2, 1999. The Court forwarded note CDH-11,760/002 to the State on July 12, (**) 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.