22 Eighth Objection 90. The eighth objection interposed by the State concerns “ambiguity in the manner of submitting the application.” 91. The Court summarizes in the following manner the arguments of the State and of the Commission: a. The State argued that there is no agreement between the purpose of the application and the petition on which that purpose was based. When referring to the purpose of the application, the Commission asked the Court for the release of the prisoners and reparations for the alleged material and moral injuries they suffered, while in its petition the Commission demanded that the State annul the proceedings which took place in the military court against the aforementioned persons and initiate a new proceeding, respecting due process and granting the consequent reparations for the “violations caused by the military proceedings.” b. The Commission observed that this objection “reiterates the arguments presented under the heading of the Fourth Objection;” that its position is that which was expressed in the proceeding before the Court and not that contained in Report 17/97; that [t]he lack of similarity between the Article 50 or Article 51 Report and the application to the Court, results from ‘the conduct of the State,’ as the Court stated in Advisory Opinion OC\13. [...] If the Peruvian State had taken steps to implement the recommendations of the Article 50 Report, there would not have been a need to make an application to the Court. Nor would it have been necessary for the Court to hear the statements of the petitioners in order to decide on reparations. During the public hearing, the Commission added that unclearness of the request “if it exists, can mean, at most, that the applicant is told to clarify the terms of its application, but in no way would it result in a rejection in limine.” 92. As regards this eighth objection raised by the State, the Court deems that the observations it made in the examination of the fourth objection are applicable (supra 73). Of course, there should be congruity between the statements made in the body of the application and those which are made in the pleas of said document, taking into account the natural continuity that exists logically between them. In any case, the Court can and should, in accordance with the principle of iura novit curia, examine the document in its entirety and consider its character and the meaning of the requests made by the applicant, so as to duly evaluate and resolve them. (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra 63, para. 163 and Godínez Cruz Case, supra 73, para. 173). The Court will not begin to examine the other observations set forth with regard to this objection interposed by the State and which are not the proper subject matter for a preliminary objection, analysis of which will be reserved for the time of the respective judgment. 93. Consequently, the Court deems this objection to be inadmissible. XI LAPSE OF THE APPLICATION