2 the resolutions that dismissed them: Nos. 002-97-CR, 003-97-CR and 004-97-CR of May 28, 1997. As part of the reparation, the Commission requested that the alleged victims should be compensated for all the salary-related income that they failed to receive from the time of their dismissal until the date of their effective reinstatement, and also receive a payment for moral damages. Lastly, the Commission requested that Peru should be condemned to pay the “reasonable” expenses and costs incurred by the alleged victims and their lawyers when processing the case in the Peruvian jurisdiction and before the Commission and the Inter-American Court. II COMPETENCE OF THE COURT 3. The Court is competent to hear this case. Peru has been a State Party to the Convention since July 28, 1978, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. On May 15, 1997, the Inter-American Commission received a petition signed by 27 deputies of the Congress of Peru, concerning the dismissal of the justices of the Constitutional Court referred to above. On July 16, 1997, the Commission began processing this petition and forwarded the pertinent parts to the State requesting it to provide any relevant information within 90 days. 5. On October 16, 1997, Peru submitted a report prepared by the National Human Rights Council (Official letter No. 1858-97-JUS/CNDH-SE), in which it requested that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible “inasmuch as the petitioners ha[d] not exhausted domestic remedies.” On October 21, 1997, the Commission forwarded this report to the petitioners, requesting that they present any comments within 30 days. 6. On January 28, 1998, the Commission convened a public audience for February 25, 1998, during its 98th regular session, in order to hear the parties concerning the admissibility of the petition. 7. On April 30, 1998, the petitioners requested that the Commission find the petition admissible. That same day, the Commission informed the State of this request. 8. On May 5, 1998, during the 99th special session, the Commission adopted the Admissibility Report on petition No. 35/98, in which it concluded “that since the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention applied in the instant case, it was not necessary for domestic remedies to be exhausted for the Commission to be competent to take up the petition.” In a note of June 29, 1998, the State replied, stating that, as the Admissibility Report had been issued, “it was unnecessary to make any comment on the allegations made prior to the admissibility decision” and announced that it would submit a report concerning the admissibility of the petition in this case at a later date. This information was forwarded to the petitioners.

Select target paragraph3