5 25. According to the Commission's observations of March 20, 1987, the Government submitted the text of the preliminary report of the "Investigatory Commission" on October 17, 1985. 26. On April 7, 1986, the Government informed the Commission that "notwithstanding the efforts of the Investigatory Commission . . . no new evidence has been discovered." It also pointed out that "the information at hand contains no convincing evidence on which to rule on the alleged disappearances with absolute certainty" and that it was impossible "to identify the persons allegedly responsible." 27. Based on the foregoing, at its 67th Session (April 1986), the Commission adopted Resolution 24/86, confirming Resolution 32/83 and referring the instant case to the Court. III 28. In its submissions of October 31, 1986, the Government concluded that: (It) has set forth in this document its observations and objections regarding the breach of procedural norms prior to the filing of Case 8097 with the Honorable InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. The incriminating tone of the Resolution, the incorrect mention of certain particulars, the questioning of our country's legal system, the lack of an adequate and impartial evaluation of the evidence and the obvious failure by the Commission to take into account the Central American context and the democratic transition that the State of Honduras was undergoing at that time, are all elements that the Honorable Court cannot ignore. A reading of Resolution 24/86 leads to the conclusion that the Commission's methodology distorted the truth. The Commission arrived at very serious negative conclusions and judgments that are totally unfounded . . . . 29. In its submissions of March 20, 1987, the Commission concluded that: 1. Officials or agents of the Government of Honduras detained Saul Godínez Cruz on July 22, 1982, in Choluteca, Honduras and that he has been missing since that date. This constitutes a most serious violation of the rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty, which are guaranteed by Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to which Honduras is a State Party. 2. The substantive or procedural objections raised by the Government of Honduras in its Memorial have no legal basis under the provisions of the relevant articles of the American Convention on Human Rights and the standards of international law; and 3. Since Honduras has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, the Commission again petitions the Honorable Court, pursuant to Article 63 (1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to find a violation of the rights to life (Article 4), to humane treatment (Article 5) and to personal liberty (Article 7) guaranteed by the Convention. It also asks the Court to rule that the consequences of the situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party or parties.