indicated “its willingness to continue cooperating in the procedure, in the understanding that the friendly settlement mechanism is the most appropriate.” Furthermore, in its brief of March 19, 2007, the State indicated is intention of organizing a meeting with the petitioners as “a new attept to find […] ways to resolve the case in the national jurisdiction.” 32. Second, the Court emphasizes that, in the case file before the Commission there is no evidence that, when the Commission forwarded merits report No. 111/09 to the State or before this, the State had filed any objection before this organ related to the time frame for the issue of the said report. Furthermore, the fact that it had not issued the merits report “by November 12, 2001, at the latest,” as the State argues (supra para. 25), gave the Dominican Republic more time to take measures at the domestic level to investigate the facts that had been denounced. 33. Lastly, the Court has observed that, when analyzing the said time frame under Article 23(2) of the Commission’s Statute, the Dominican Republic misapplied the criteria of this Court in its judgment in the case of Cayara v. Peru (1993) concerning the period indicated in Article 51(1) of the American Convention for the submission of the case to the Court. In this regard, it should be pointed out that there are fundamental differences between the two time frames. It must be emphasized that, regarding the three-month period established in the said Article 51(1), the Convention itself establishes the legal consequence that, if the case is not submitted to the Court within this period, this possibility is precluded and the Commission may, at its own discretion, issue a second report under the provisions of Article 51(1) of this treaty. 35 This characteristic of the time frame of the latter article is not found with regard to the time frame under Article 23(2) of the Commission’s Statute. The Convention and the Commission’s Statute do not stipulate the legal consequence that, if the merits report is not issued within the time frame indicated in Article 23(2), the case cannot be submitted to the Court. 34. The foregoing findings allow it to be verified that, in the instant case, the Commission’s actions are justified owing to the position assumed by the parties, and they did not prejudice the State’s right of defense or procedural guarantees, such as those relating to the adversarial principle and the principles of procedural balance and legal certainty. 36 35. Based on the above, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. C) “Partial inadmissibility of the application owing to the ‘fourth instance’ principle” Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission American States of October 21, 1997, and May 2, 2007, both addressed to the Inter-American Commission; communications and briefs of the Office of the Attorney General of the Dominican Republic of November 6, 1997, addressed to Alberto García, S.J.; communications and briefs of the Office of the Attorney General of the Dominican Republic of February 25 and September 18, 1998, addressed to the Inter-American Commission, of September 18, 1998, addressed to the Deputy Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic, and of December 15, 1997, addressed to the “Truth Commission” organization (file of attachments to the application, attachment 3, folios 605, 623, 640, 641, 643, 693, 694 and 1013). 35 Cf. Case of Cayara v. Peru, supra note 28, paras. 59 to 63, and Reports of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Art. 51 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 of November 14, 1997. Series A No. 15, paras. 46 and 47. 36 Cf. Case of Cayara v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 42; and Advisory Opinion OC-19/05, supra note 26, paras. 25 to 27. 14