3 8. On August 20, 1999, the petitioners submitted a proposal for a friendly settlement to the Commission. On November 3, 1999, the State rejected the petitioners’ proposal. 9. On August 15, 2001, the petitioners requested that the attempt to reach a friendly settlement should be concluded. 10. On February 28, 2002, in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention, the Commission adopted report No. 27/02, in which it recommended that the State: 1. Lift the criminal charges against Ricardo Canese. 2. Lift the restrictions imposed on Mr. Canese’s freedom of movement 3. Make reparation to Mr. Canese, by paying the corresponding compensation. 4. Take the necessary measures to prevent such facts from occurring in the future. 11. On March 13, 2002, the Commission forwarded the said report to the State and granted it two months from the date of transmittal to provide information on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations. On May 23, 2002, the State presented its answer to Report No. 27/02 (supra para. 10). 12. On June 12, 2002, the Commission submitted the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Court. IV PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 13. On June 12, 2002, the Commission filed the application before the Court (supra para. 1), appointing José Zalaquett and Santiago A. Canton as delegates and Ariel Dulitzky and Eduardo Bertoni as legal advisers. 14. On July 2, 2002, after the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) had made a preliminary review of the application, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) notified it to the State, together with its attachments, advising the State of the time limits for answering it and appointing its representatives in the proceeding. The same day, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the State of its right to appoint a judge ad hoc to take part in the consideration of the case. 15. On July 2, 2002, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35(1) subparagraphs (d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat notified the application to the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL” or “the representatives”), in its capacity as the original petitioner and representative of the alleged victim, and informed it that it had 30 days to submit its brief with requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “brief with request and arguments”). 16. On July 22, 2002, the Secretariat informed the Commission that the section on the object of its application (page 2, paragraph 6), referred to Articles 1, 8, 9, 13 and 25 of the American Convention, while, the rest of the application referred to Article 22, rather than Article 25; it therefore requested the corresponding clarification. On July 26, 2002, the Commission forwarded a note advising that the