7 14. On June 22, 1997, the petitioners submitted comments on the State’s communication of May 1, 1997 (supra para. 12), which were forwarded to Peru on July 28, 1997. 15. On October 9, 1997, during the Commission’s Ninety-seventh session, another hearing on the case was held. 16. On January 7, 1999, the Inter-American Commission made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement; however, Peru asked it to desist from this initiative and to declare the case inadmissible, owing to failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 17. On March 7, 2000, during its One hundred and sixth session and based on Article 50 of the Convention, the Commission adopted Report No. 28/00, which was transmitted to the State the next day. In this Report, the Commission recommended to the State that: A. […] it annul any domestic, legislative or any other measure aimed at preventing the investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the assassinations and injuries resulting from the events known as the “Barrios Altos” operation. To this end, the State of Peru should abrogate Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492. B. […] it conduct a serious, impartial and effective investigation into the facts, in order to identify those responsible for the assassinations and injuries in this case, and continue with the judicial prosecution of Julio Salazar Monroe, Santiago Martín Rivas, Nelson Carbajal García, Juan Sosa Saavedra and Hugo Coral Goycochea, and punish those responsible for these grave crimes, through the corresponding criminal procedure, in accordance with the law. C. […] it grant full reparation, which implies granting the corresponding compensation for the human rights violations indicated in this case to the four surviving victims and the next of kin of the 15 victims who died. Moreover, the Commission agreed: To transmit this report to the State of Peru and to grant it a period of two months to comply with its recommendations. This period will be calculated from the date that this report is transmitted to the State, which is not authorized to publish it. The Commission also agrees to notify the petitioners that the report has been approved, in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention. 18. On May 9, 2000, Peru forwarded its answer to the Commission’s Report, which indicated that the promulgation and application of Amnesty Laws No. 26479 and No. 26492, were exceptional measures adopted against terrorist violence. It also pointed out that the Constitutional Court of Peru had declared that the action on unconstitutionality filed against those laws was unfounded, “but it expressly indicated the subsistence of the actions for civil reparation in favor of the injured parties or their next of kin.” 19. On May 10, 2000, the Commission decided to submit the case to the Court. V PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT