9 34. From the foregoing, it can be determined that it has been a constant practice, not objected to by the Governments, to file the application with the Court initially by telex or fax, followed by the submission, a few days later, of the original documents and the ten copies referred to in Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure. In none of the cases listed did the lapse of time between the filing of the application by fax and the reception of the original documents together with ten copies, exceed fourteen calendar days. 35. The Court does not find sufficient cause to modify this practice, inasmuch as every court should keep pace with contemporary life and make use of technological advances and modern electronic means to facilitate their communications with the parties to the proceedings, so that these communications may be made with due ease and speed. This is applicable, a fortiori, to an international human rights tribunal, as it allows the Court to act with security and with normal precautions in the context of the difficulties created by the distance between the tribunal and the parties. Taken together with the fact that the document originally sent by fax is forwarded within a few days of the fax, no valid grounds exist for a claim that the procedural rights of the parties are harmed in such a way as to rule out the fax as a means of communication. 36. For these reasons, the Court considers that the filing of the application by fax is valid, and, therefore, the objection of untimeliness cannot be grounded on that fact. 37. With respect to the second argument of this preliminary objection, that the failure to file the application in ten copies represents non-fulfillment of a “basic requirement,” in violation of Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure, which should lead to the rejection of the application, this Court considers that, although the Commission did not literally fulfill this regulatory requirement, this fact should be analyzed in the light of Article 26, in conjunction with Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. According to Article 27, the President shall, during the preliminary review of the application, request the applicant to correct any deficiencies derived from the omission of “basic requirements.” If the President is granted the authority to order the correction of “basic requirements” which have been omitted, as has actually happened in this case, then there are better grounds, within certain limits of reasonableness and timeliness, for subsequent acceptance of the ten copies of the application. Moreover, this is a formal requirement, breach of which does not necessarily leave a party defenseless or lead to procedural unbalance or inequality as between the parties. 38. that: It is appropriate in this case to recall the criteria laid down by the Court to the effect the procedural system is a means of attaining justice and that the latter cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities. Keeping within certain timely and reasonable limits, some omissions or delays in complying with procedure may be excused, provided that a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty is preserved. (Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 42) 39. This Court determines that there is no reason to alter the practice by which the party bringing the case submits the ten copies of the application subsequent to its filing by fax, but always within the above-mentioned limits of timeliness and reasonableness. The submission of the copies a few days after the filing of the application allows a reasonable minimum of time for the President to undertake a preliminary review of the application and even to take procedural measures to correct any defects which may come to light. 40. As was stated earlier (see supra para. 29), the ordinary meaning of the terms, the context, and the object and purpose, in the interpretation of treaties, are the elements to be