15 regulates the submission of matters to this Court. Suriname’s first request, on June 20, 2002, for an extension of the Article 51(1) time limit – which, at that point in the proceedings, was scheduled to expire on June 21, 2002 – was granted by the Commission, resulting in an extension of the deadline until August 20, 2002. On August 20, 2002, the State requested an additional four months, “primarily […] to continue with the detailed investigation of the matter”; as a result, on August 20, 2002, the Commission revised the time limit again, and communicated to Suriname that it would accordingly expire on December 20, 2002. The Commission states that subsequently, “in the absence of substantive developments” regarding the State’s investigation of the facts and the settlement of the case, it decided to submit the application to the Court on the day the second extension expired, that is, December 20, 2002. 57. The Court has already established that the extension of the three-month time period stipulated in Article 51(1) of the Convention is permissible, provided that it is, of course, carried out within a context of procedural fairness.6 In the instant case, the conditions regarding the two extensions were explicitly acknowledged by both the Commission and the State. Indeed, during both occasions the State expressly recognized that “if the suspension is granted, […] once the […] suspension has expired and no settlement of the case has been reached, the Commission may decide to submit the case to the Inter-American Court.” Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that the Commission honored the terms of its agreement with the State, by not submitting the application to the Court until the second extension actually expired on December 20, 2002. 58. Moreover, in accordance with international legal practice, when a party to a case adopts a position that is either beneficial to it or detrimental to the other party, it cannot subsequently, in virtue of the principle of estoppel, assume a contradictory position. In that regard, the rule of non concedit venire contra factum proprium applies.7 59. For the foregoing reasons, the Court rejects the instant preliminary objection. FOURTH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION In its Merits Report No. 35/02, the Commission “concluded other violations than those for which the case was admitted” Arguments of the State 60. Regarding the fourth preliminary objection, Suriname has argued that in the Merits Report No. 35/02, the Commission concluded that certain violations of the American Declaration were committed, despite the fact that the petitioners did not originally allege those violations. Thus, the Commission declared other violations than those for which the case was admitted, “contrary to international law” and to the detriment of the State’s defense. 6 Cf. Case of Cayara. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 38; and Case of Neira-Alegría et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 34. 7 Cf. Case of Neira-Alegría et al. Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, para. 29.