3 be convenient for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to wait until the closing of said cases, before taking a definitive stand on them. 6. On June 7, 1990, the Commission asked the State information for internal recourses exhaustion, the proceedings before the military Court and the whereabouts of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte Rivera, but it did not respond to this requirement. 7. On March 5, 1996, the Commission approved Report No. 15/96, which was sent to the State on May 8 of the same year. In the operative paragraphs of said report, the Commission decided: 1. TO DECLARE the State of Peru responsible for the violations to the detriment of Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera and [Nolberto] Durand Ugarte, of the rights to personal freedom, life, and an effective judicial protection, as well as judicial guarantees of due legal process that are recognized, respectively, by Articles 7, 4, 25 and 8 of the American Convention. Likewise, in the present case, the Peruvian state has not fulfilled the obligation to respect the rights and guarantees stipulated by Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 2. TO RECOMMEND to the State of Peru to pay an adequate, prompt, and effective indemnification to compensate the victims' relatives for the moral and material damage as a result of the facts denounced and proven by the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 3. TO REQUIRE the Government of Peru that within 60 days after the notification of the current report, to communicate to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, the measures that would have been adopted in the present case, pursuant to the recommendations mentioned in the previous paragraph. 4. TO CONVEY the present report in keeping with Article 50 of the American Convention and to communicate to the Government of Peru that it does not have authorization to publish it. 5. TO SUBMIT this case to the consideration of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights if, within sixty days, the Peruvian State will not comply with the recommendation stated in paragraph 2. 8. On July 5, 1996 the State sent to the Commission a copy of the Report developed by a Task Force composed of representatives of various branch offices of the State. According to the Commission and based on said Report, it was evident that Peru had not followed its recommendations. IV PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 9. On August 8, 1996, the application was submitted to the Court. The Commission appointed Mr. John S. Donaldson as delegate, Mr. Alvaro Tirado Mejía as alternate delegate, and Mr. Domingo E. Acevedo as advisor; whereas, Mr. Ronald Gamarra, Katya Salazar, José Miguel Vivanco, Viviana Krsticevic, Ariel Dulitzky, and Marcela Matamoros were appointed as assistants. On March 9, 1998, the Commission appointed Helio Bicudo and Domingo E. Acevedo as new delegates. Based on a note received on June 18, 1998 Mrs. Matamoros communicated to the Court her resignation to participate in the present case. 10. On August 23, 1996, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat"), after a preliminary examination of the application undertaken by the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President"), informed it to the State.