4 foregoing constitutes a violation by the State […] of the obligation imposed by Article 1(1) to respect and ensure the rights embodied in the Convention. And recommended to the State that it should: a. Guarantee to the congressional employees identified and listed in the appendix [to the] report, a simple, prompt and effective recourse to examine their claims concerning their dismissal under Resolutions Nos. 1303-A-92-CACL and 1303-B-92-CACL of November 6, 1992, of the Administrative Commission of the Congress of the Republic, published on December 31, 1992. This recourse should be conducted with full judicial guarantees and should lead to a ruling on the merits of the claims filed. b. Modify article 9 of Decree Law [No.] 25640 of July 21, 1992, and article 27 of Resolution No. 1239-A-92-CACL of October 13, 1992, to harmonize them with the American Convention. 19. On November 4, 2004, the Commission forwarded the Report on Merits to the State, granting the latter two months to provide information on the measures adopted to comply with its recommendations. 20. On November 4, 2004, the Commission notified the petitioners of the adoption of the Report on Merits and its transmittal to the State. It also asked them to state their position regarding the possible submission of the case to the InterAmerican Court. On December 3 and 22, 2004, the petitioners expressed their wish that the case be submitted to the Court. 21. On January 19, 2005, having been granted an extension, Peru presented information on compliance with the recommendations contained in Report on Merits No. 78/04 (supra para. 18). 22. On February 3, 2005, considering “that the State had not adopted its recommendations satisfactorily,” the Inter-American Commission decided to submit this case to the consideration of the Court. IV PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 23. On February 4, 2005, the Inter-American Commission lodged the application before the Court (supra para. 1), attaching documentary evidence and offering expert evidence. The Commission appointed José Zalaquett and Santiago Canton as delegates, and Ariel Dulitzky, Víctor H. Madrigal, Pedro E. Díaz and Lilly Ching as legal advisers. 24. On April 4, 2005, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat informed the alleged victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) accredited before the Commission when the application was submitted, and also the Commission and the State, that a preliminary examination of the application was being made pursuant to Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, it advised them that, based on this initial examination of the application, the President had determined that various problems concerning representation had arisen during the proceedings before the Commission, and they subsisted at the time the application was lodged before the Court. These problems included the alleged victims granting powers of attorney to different representatives at different times; differences in the purpose of the representation, which become apparent from the