7 20. On November 1, 1989, the petitioner affirmed that the domestic jurisdiction had already been exhausted. 21. With regard to case Nº 10.264, the Government sent the Commission a communication on May 8, 1990, with which it transmitted copy of a letter dated February 1, 1990, “addressed by the President of the Supreme Council of Military Justice to the Minister of Defense, informing him that on May 12, 1989, the Army’s Second Judicial Zone decided to dismiss the claim in the aforementioned case, and the Supreme Council of Military Justice confirmed the dismissal by Order of January 31, 1990.” 22. On March 26, 1990, the original petitioner, Americas Watch, asked the Commission to regard Amnesty International as a co-petitioner for purposes of processing the case. The Commission agreed to do so. 23. In its Report Nº 29/91 of February 20, 1991, the Commission expressed the opinion that both the relatives of the victims and the petitioners themselves have exhausted all the remedies that the Peruvian legal system makes available to them, yet the responsible parties have neither been identified nor punished, thereby preventing the victims, next of kin from filing civil suits for damages, and from this one can conclude that the remedies under domestic law in Peru were ineffective in the instant case. The Commission also considered that the subject matter relating to these cases was not pending in another international proceeding. Consequently, it concluded that the admissibility requirements spelled out in Article 46 of the Convention had been fully complied with. In that Resolution, the Commission declared that Peru had violated the articles of the Convention listed in paragraph 2 above. In addition, the Resolution [. . .] 3) Recommends to the Government of Peru that it launch an exhaustive and impartial investigation into the facts denounced to find the persons responsible for the violations indicated in operative paragraphs 1 and 2 described in the report and to bring them to trial so that they may receive the punishment that such serious conduct demands. 4) Recommends to the Government of Peru that it inform the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the findings of the investigation recommended in the preceding operative paragraph, within 60 days of the date of transmission of this report. 5) Recommends to the Government of Peru that it indemnify the victims and/or their next of kin, seeking reparation for the damages caused and report to the Commission within the same time period indicated in the preceding operative paragraph. 24. During its 79th Session of February, 1991, the Commission studied cases 10.264, 10.206, 10.276 and 10.446 jointly and approved Report Nº 29/91 in which, among other things, it decided to submit the cases to the jurisdiction of the Court. The report was sent to the Government on March 1, 1991. In view of the fact that the Government did not receive the report until April 5, the Commission agreed to its request that the 60-day period granted begin to run as of that date.