12 of transmission of the Commission’s Article 50 Report. Moreover, the Court has determined in its jurisprudence that Article 51 of the Convention requires a matter to be filed before the Court within the three-month period under Article 51, but has never interpreted said article in a manner that requires the Court to determine its jurisdiction over the case within this same three-month period. 35) Even in respect of the requirement under Article 51 of the Convention that an application be filed with the Court within the three-month period prescribed thereunder, the Court has held in its Advisory Opinion Certain Attributes of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (OC-13/93)6 that the time limit, while of preclusive character, is not fatal with regard to the submission of a case to the Court where special circumstances exist. In particular, the Court has established in the Cayara case’s preliminary objections7 that an application containing “serious charges” cannot be deemed to have lapsed simply on the grounds of a brief lapse in the time period under Article 51 of the Convention and, more generally, that the Court’s procedural system as a means of attaining justice cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities. 36) Given the urgency of the issues raised in the Court, particularly the legitimacy of the pending requested that the State should not be permitted to over the case based upon an erroneous interpretation Article 51 of the Convention. present application before the executions, the Commission defeat the Court’s jurisdiction of the procedural period under Considerations of the Court 37) The Court considers that insofar as the first argument of the State’s preliminary objection is concerned, several implicit issues must be clarified: first, the State objects to the Commission’s submission of the complaint, which it considers to have expired in light of the three months stipulated in Article 51(1) of the Convention; and second, it objects to the supposed “failure of the Court to accept jurisdiction” within the mentioned time limit. 38) The Court will not analyze whether the application was submitted within ninety days of July 5, 2000, since it is of the opinion that, in accordance with Article 51(1) of the American Convention, the period of three months should be based on the Gregorian calendar month, which is to say, from date to date. 39) As this Court has established in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case it has been the regular practice of the Court to compute the period of three months referred to in Article 51(1) of the Convention from date to date […] In the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case (Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 17), the Court inadvertently used the expression “90 6 Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 51. 7 Cayara Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, paras. 40 and 42.