8 34. It follows that the original period of three months was extended by the Commission at the request of Peru. In accordance with elementary principles of good faith that govern all international relations, Peru cannot invoke the expiration of a time-limit that was extended at its own behest. Therefore, the Commission’s submission of the case cannot be deemed to have been untimely; on the contrary, the matter was submitted within the period granted to the Government at its own request (See Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 30, para. 72; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 30, para. 72; and, Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 30, para. 75). 35. Peru cannot now also assert, as it did at the hearing, that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to grant the extension of the three month period which the Government itself had requested, since principles of good faith dictate that one may not request something of another and then challenge the grantor’s powers once the request has been complied with. V Now, therefore, THE COURT, by four votes to one, rejects the objections interposed by the Government of Peru. Jorge E. Orihuela-Iberico, ad hoc Judge, dissenting. Done in Spanish and English, the Spanish text being authentic. Read at the public hearing held at the seat of the Court in San Jose, Costa Rica, on December 11, 1991. Héctor Fix-Zamudio President Thomas Buergenthal Rafael Nieto-Navia Julio A. Barberis Iberico Jorge E. Orihuela- Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary So ordered, Héctor Fix-Zamudio