2 On October 20, 1994, the report referred to in Article 51(1) was remitted to the Government. The application was filed with the Court by the Commission out of time and in an anomalous manner, inasmuch as it was sent in the early hours of January 19, 1995, when the period, which ended on January 17, 1995, had already expired. It seems extreme to think that in international justice two days delay in the filing of an application is irrelevant when it is for the purpose of the protection of human rights. Nevertheless this does not correspond to reality. The Commission itself in the public hearing which took place on September 16, 1995, presented a photocopy of the Judgment of September 22, 1993, rendered by the European Court of Human Rights, in the Instituto Di Vigilanza Case, in which it decided that the request to send the case to the (European) Court was inadmissible because it was made out of time, given that the Commission exceeded by only one day the period permitted. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 3, 1993, stated in paragraph 38: Nevertheless, legal certainty requires that states know what norms they are to follow. The Commission cannot be permitted to apply the time limits in arbitrary fashion, particularly when these are spelled out in the Convention. There is, thus, jurisprudence in support of the thesis maintained, without implying excessive formalism. The Commission argues that the period of three months referred to in Article 51(1) of the Convention should be computed in conformity with the number of days that correspond to the calendar month. This is not the case, since, for the sake of legal certainty, the legally accepted meaning of the expression MONTH is the equivalent of 30 days. Therefore, the period of three months is equal to 90 days. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights itself recognized it as such in approving Resolution 43/90 (contained in the Judgment of December 11, 1991), Neira Alegría et al. Case, which reads verbatim: 6. To transmit the present report to the Government of Peru so that the latter may make any observations it deems appropriate within ninety days from the date it is sent. Pursuant to Art. 47(6) of the Commission's Regulations, the parties are not authorized to publish the present report. 7. To submit the present case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights unless the Government of Peru solves the matter within the three months allotted in the previous paragraph. (Emphasis by the Judge ad hoc) For its part, the Court has also recognized that the period of three months as mentioned in Article 51(1) of the Convention, is composed of 90 days, as is demonstrated repeatedly in paragraphs 35-39-43-47(a), and 54, among others, in the Judgment of January 21, 1994. (Caballero Delgado and Santana Case). Notwithstanding the above, the Court on this occasion departs from its own case law. Consequently, both the objection of extinguishment and that of the bar of the rule of limitations should be admitted pursuant to Article 31(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. The State of Guatemala also submitted the preliminary objection that the application filed against the State by the Commission is null and void for obvious and material violations. One violation is that the period fixed by Article 51(1) of the Convention had expired; and the other that the Commission did not fulfill the requirements of Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, for the referral of a case to the Court under Article