4 Sixth Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Guayaquil, to which this ruling will be forwarded in consultation to request a summary review.” The Commission noted that, at the time of the admissibility report, on October 5, 2000, there had been no decision on said request for a summary review, and it concluded “that it is a case of unjustified delay [,] for which reason […it deemed that] domestic remedies had been exhausted regarding the right to private property, set forth in Article 21 of the American Convention.” Said report was forwarded to the petitioner and to the State by the Commission on October 26, 2000. 12. On October 30, 2000 the Commission made itself available to the parties for purposes of attaining a friendly settlement. On November 17, 2000 the petitioner stated that he was interested in a friendly settlement. On November 28, 2000 the Commission informed the State of the petitioner’s interest in reaching a friendly settlement, and requested its comments on the matter. The State expressed no interest in seeking a friendly settlement. Therefore, the Commission prepared the report on the merits of the case. 13. On October 2, 2001 the State forwarded a brief to the Commission on the merits of the case, in which it argued that the human rights violations of which Mr. Tibi accused Ecuador had not existed, as it was proven that the State had acted in accordance with the law. Ecuador also forwarded information on the circumstances and conditions of Mr. Tibi’s detention. 14. On November 14, 2001, the Commission held a public hearing on the merits of the case. At this hearing, the State requested that it be authorized to answer certain questions in writing after the hearing. Therefore, on November 15, 2001 the Commission sent the questions to the State and requested the respective answers. On January 11, 2002, the State sent its reply to the questions posed by the Commission. On the 18th of that same month and year, the Commission forwarded said communication by the State to the petitioner, and asked him to submit his comments. 15. On December 12 and 14, 2001, respectively, the petitioner informed the Commission that the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”) and the Clínica de Derechos Humanos of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (hereinafter “Clínica de Derechos Humanos PUCE”) would represent him. 16. On March 4, 2002 the petitioner submitted his comments on the brief by the State, in which the State answered the Commission’s questions (supra para. 14). On April 1, 2002 the Commission forwarded said communication to the State and asked it to submit its comments. The State made no comments. 17. On March 3, 2003, during its 117th Session, the Commission adopted Report No. 34/03 on the merits of the case, and recommended to the State that it: 1. Provide full reparation, which involves the respective compensation and rehabilitation for the torture of Daniel David Tibi, and erasing any [...] criminal [...] record if it exists [...]. 2. Take the necessary steps to make the legislation on amparo effective. 18. On March 25, 2003 the Commission forwarded to the State the aforementioned report, and asked it to report, within two months of the date when the report was forwarded, on the steps taken to comply with the recommendations.