18 lack of status as a legal entity of the party that, in the name of the Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas (FASIC), filed petition No. 11.319 with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the Peruvian State and lack of standing of the aforementioned foundation. 76. In this regard, the Court summarizes the arguments of the State and the Commission as follows: a. The State asserted that a party who takes action in the name of or in representation of a legal entity, must be duly authorized under the bylaws of that entity or have its express authorization. Neither Verónica Reyna nor FASIC were accredited respectively as representatives or recognized as a non governmental organization in Chile. During the public hearing, the State added that it was not questioning the existence of this foundation nor the legal capacity of the person who lodged the complaint in its name. b. The Commission responded that it did not ask the foundation to “establish its legal capacity when it lodged the complaint in this case, because it is an organization known to the Commission,” which appears in the Guide to Non Governmental Human Rights Organizations, published in 1991 by the InterAmerican Institute of Human Rights of San José, Costa Rica. During the public hearing, the Commission indicated that it had always “broadly interpreted Article 44 so as not to require the existence of a power of attorney or specific representation; it is sufficient that the action is taken by a group of persons.” 77. As to this objection, the Court takes note that irrespective of the examination that it could make, if it were necessary, of the existence and authority of FASIC and of the person who took action in its name, it is clear that Article 44 of the Convention permits any group of persons to lodge petitions or complaints of the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. This broad authority to make a complaint is a characteristic feature of the system for the international protection of human rights. In the present case, the petitioners are a “group of persons,” and therefore, for the purpose of legitimacy, they satisfy one of the possibilities set forth in the aforementioned Article 44. The evident authority in this instance makes it unnecessary to examine the registration of FASIC, and the relationship that said foundation has or is said to have with those who act as its representatives. This consideration is strengthened if it is remembered that, as the Court has stated on other occasions, the formalities that characterize certain branches of domestic law do not apply to international human rights law, whose principal and determining concern is the just and complete protection of those rights. In other words, "failure to observe certain formalities is not necessarily relevant when dealing on the international plane. What is essential is that the conditions necessary for the procedural rights of the parties not be diminished or unbalanced, and that the objectives of the different procedures be met.” (Vélasquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 56, paras. 33 and 34; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 56, paras. 38 and 39; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 56, paras. 36 and 37; Paniagua Morales et. al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 42, and Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Preliminary Objections, supra note 56, para. 44). The International Court of Justice has spoken to this issue in stating that the Court, “whose jurisdiction is international, is not bound to attach to matters of form the same degree of importance which they might possess in municipal law