5 Consequently, the IACHR will be making a final decision as to the publication of the reports during its 82nd Session. It shall base its decision both on the effective adoption of the recommendations contained therein and on the implementation of those presented to the Government during the on-site visit to be made by the Commission next May. 17. During its 82nd Session in September 1992, the Commission heard a report on the steps taken by the Special Commission during its on-site visit and received the representatives of the Government and the petitioners at a hearing. On September 25, 1992, the Commission approved Report Nº 31/92 of September 25, 1992, the operative part of which reads as follows: 1. To reject the request for reconsideration presented by the Government of Colombia, ratify Report 31/91 of September 29, 1991, and refer this case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 2. To transmit the instant report to the Government of the Republic of Colombia and to the petitioner, with the admonition that it may not be published and that the period stipulated in Article 51(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights starts to run on September 25, 1992, the date of final adoption of the report in question. III 18. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. Colombia has been a State Party to the Convention since July 31, 1973, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, as set out in Article 62 of the Convention, on June 21, 1985. IV 19. The Government interposed the following preliminary objections: a. failure of the Commission to initiate a friendly settlement procedure; b. incorrect application of Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention; and, c. non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. V 20. The Court will now examine the first of these preliminary objections. In support of this objection, the Government alleged both in its pleadings and at the relevant hearing that the Commission had infringed the provisions of Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention by not placing itself at the disposal of the parties to reach a friendly settlement of this matter, despite the fact that the Government had at no time denied the facts of the case. Consequently, it is arbitrary to assert, as the Commission’s Report Nº 31/91 of September 26, 1991 does, that the facts of the case are “by their very nature” not subject to resolution through the friendly settlement procedure and that the parties themselves failed to request such a recourse in accordance with Article 45 of the Regulations of the Commission. 21. The Government argues that the above provision of the Convention does not empower the Commission to transfer to the parties its obligation -which belongs exclusively to the Commissionto place itself at their disposal with a view to reaching a friendly settlement, in order to later contend that by not requesting such a settlement the parties have forfeited the right to charge the Commission with violating the Convention. Furthermore, it is the Government’s opinion that Article 45(1) of the Commission’s Regulations does not accurately reflect the scope and content of