30 relating to the alleged acts, evaluated them, and ruled to acquit her. 77. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Peruvian State violated Article 8(4) of the American Convention with Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's trial in the civil jurisdiction for the same facts of which she had been acquitted in the military jurisdiction. XVI 78. The Commission requested the Court to find that the State violated Article 51(2) of the Convention by refusing to "comply with the recommendations made by the Commission." 79. The Court has previously stated that, in accordance with the stipulation regarding interpretation contained in Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the term "recommendations" used by the American Convention, should be interpreted to conform to its ordinary meaning (Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, para. 67, and Genie Lacayo Case, Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 93). 80. However, in accordance with the principle of good faith, embodied in the aforesaid Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention, if a State signs and ratifies an international treaty, especially one concerning human rights, such as the American Convention, it has the obligation to make every effort to apply with the recommendations of a protection organ such as the Inter-American Commission, which is, indeed, one of the principal organs of the Organization of American States, whose function is "to promote the observance and defense of human rights" in the hemisphere (OAS Charter, Articles 52 and 111). 81. Likewise, Article 33 of the American Convention states that the Inter-American Commission is, as the Court, competent "with respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the State Parties", which means that by ratifying said Convention, States Parties engage themselves to apply the recommendations made by the Commission in its reports. 82. With respect to this matter, the Court is of the opinion that it cannot decide whether article 51(2) of the Convention was violated or not in a case which, like the present one, has been submitted before the Court, because the report established in the abovementioned Article does not exist. XVII 83. In its application, the Commission requested that the Court order Peru to repair "in full María Elena Loayza-Tamayo for the grave harm --material and moral-- suffered by her" and to order her "immediate release" Article 63(1) of the American Convention reads as follows: [i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party by insured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 84. As a consequence of the violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention, particularly the prohibition of double jeopardy, to the detriment of Ms. María Elena Loayza-