12 has violated the international obligations to which it contracted on becoming a State Party to the American Convention. 48. For these reasons, the Court rejects, in toto, as inadmissible, the second and third preliminary objections (supra 34 and 40) raised by the State. IX FOURTH OBJECTION: Lack of a Prior Demand 49. The fourth objection made by the State concerns the Commission’s failure to raise in the conclusions of Report 45/97, certain claims made in the application, and that those claims were not subjects of the recommendations made to the Peruvian State by the Commission in the cited Report. 50. The Court summarizes the State’s arguments to support this objection in the following manner: a) that the Commission’s claim that those who are responsible for the acts that have been perpetrated against the victim cannot be considered by the Court, since they were not raised in the recommendations proposed by the Commission to the State in its Report; and b) that in the body of the application, the Commission argued that the State would have violated the Convention in the Fight Against Torture and Cruel Treatment (sic), which had not been the subject of a proposal in the conclusions of its Report. 51. The Court synthesizes the arguments of the Commission as to this objection in the following manner: a) that the objection raised by the State is a “reiteration of the third, fourth, and eighth objections interposed in the Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case,” for which reason it refers the Court, where relevant, to the answer given in that case (supra 29); and b) that “the duty to investigate and punish those who are responsible for violations of the human rights set forth in the Convention, emanates from the general obligation to ensure their free and full exercise which Article 1(1) imposes on the States Parties, for which reason a particular request is not necessary, and that the inclusion of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, comes about as a logical consequence of the State’s non compliance with the recommendations made by the Commission in its report.” * * * 52. In its consistent jurisprudence, the Court has affirmed the duty of the State to prevent, investigate, and punish those who are responsible for violations of the human rights set forth in the Convention. For that reason, it is not essential that the Commission include in its report a reference to the investigation and punishment of