23 Ninth Objection 94. The ninth objection interposed by the State concerns the “lapse of the application.” 95. a. b. The Court summarizes the arguments of the State and the Commission as: The State referred to the submission of a corrected version of the application by the Commission on August 26 and 28, 1997. It asserted that the “submission of the application, its admission for processing and the subsequent notification of the opposing party, precluded all rights of whoever would move to modify or vary in whole or in part its objectives. The submission of the application, its admission, and the notification of the opposing party, “are exclusive and invariable actions that can not be modified much less done so unilaterally.” To accept the second text submitted by the Commission as definitive would amount to an admission that the application was interposed after the expiration of the three months provided by Article 51(1) of the American Convention in accordance with Articles 19(a) and 23 of the Statute of the Commission and Article 47(2) of the Regulations of the Commission. The Commission stated that on August 26, 1997, it asked the Court to replace the application with a corrected version of the Spanish text submitted that same day. In said text, the Commission stated that “the corrections were merely of spelling, style, and typing mistakes in the redaction of the Spanish version of the application.” It indicated that the matter was resolved by the President of the Court on October 15, 1997, and lastly observed that the State had not indicated what prejudice a modification of this character had caused to its defense. 96. As to this objection, the Court recognizes that there can be no more than one text of an application, considering the characteristics and consequences of this proceeding, but at the same time it observes that in this case the applicant incorporated purely formal corrections and changes, so as to improve the appearance of the document, without modifying any of the objectives or affecting the procedural defense of the State. 97. In any case, it is necessary to indicate that this matter was already considered and resolved by the President of the Court in his Resolution of October 15, 1997 (supra 29). In effect, the Resolution determined the text that would serve, to the exclusion of all others, as the valid application in the instant proceeding. The Commission and the State were notified of the President’s decision on October 15 and 17 respectively, and neither of them objected or requested clarifications or changes. 98. For the reasons stated, the Court deems that this preliminary objection is inadmissible. XII SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION