3 9. On July 29, 1998, the Commission made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement, in accordance with Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. On August 14, 1998, the State responded negatively to the possibility of seeking a friendly settlement, because it deemed that this procedure was not applicable in the instant case. Finally, in a note of August 17, 1998, the petitioners indicated that the only possible solutions was the reinstatement of the justices whose dismissal was unconstitutional. 10. On December 9, 1998, during its 101st regular session, the Commission adopted Report No. 58/98, which was forwarded to the State on December 14, 1998. In this report, the Commission concluded that [...] by dismissing Justices Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur from the bench of the Constitutional Court, for alleged procedural irregularities in the clarification of the ruling that found that Law No. 26,657 was nonapplicable, [...] the State of Peru violated the essential guarantee of the Constitutional Court’s independence and autonomy (Article 25 of the American Convention); the right to a fair trial (Article 8(1) of the Convention) and the guarantee of security in a position in public service (Article 23(c) of the Convention). The Commission also made the following recommendations to the State: [t]hat [...] it make appropriate reparations to the Constitutional Court [j]ustices, Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur, by restoring them to their seats on the bench of the Constitutional Court and by compensating them for all income not received since the date of their unlawful removal from the bench. The Commission granted the State a period of two months to adopt the corresponding measures to comply with these recommendations. 11. In a note of December 15, 1998, the State expressed its concern that the media had published information on the adoption of the report pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, because the matter should have been maintained “in the strictest confidence.” 12. On February 1, 1999, the petitioners requested the Commission to submit the case to the Inter-American Court. 13. On February 12, 1999, Peru requested an extension of the 60-day period so that it might continue studying the recommendations made in the Commission’s report. On February 26, 1999, the Commission granted the requested extension and suspended the application of the time periods established in Article 51(1) of the Convention. On April 14, 1999, the State requested a further extension, to which the Commission also agreed. During the time granted by the Commission, the State and the petitioners held meetings designed to reach a friendly settlement, with the Commission’s knowledge and in its presence; however, this was not achieved. 14. On June 17, 1999, after formally notifying the parties, the Commission decided to submit the case to the Court under Article 51 of the Convention. IV PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT