11 the representative described such failures, thus preventing the Court from establishing the facts they refer to and, therefore, the date on which they occurred, whereby said argument is dismissed. 50. As to the effectiveness of Decree Law No. 2.191, it cannot be claimed that the alleged violation of Article 2 of the American Convention started as a result of the entry of such decree law into force and that, therefore, the Court is not competent to hear this fact. Such violation of Article 2 of the American Convention started when the State bound itself to adapt its domestic legislation to the provisions of the Convention, that is, at the moment the State ratified the Convention. In other words, the Court is not competent to declare that an alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention was committed at the moment such decree-law was enacted (1978), nor as regards the effectiveness and enforcement thereof up to August 21, 1990, for until such date the State did not have the duty to adapt its domestic legislation to the standards of the American Convention. Notwithstanding, since that date the Chilean State has had the duty to do so and the Court is competent to declare whether it has complied with it or not. 51. In view of the foregoing, the first preliminary objection is dismissed. SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: VIOLATIONS IN THE PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 52. Arguments of the State a) by means of communication of April 11, 2005, the Inter-American Commission informed the State that it had issued Report on the Merits No. 30/05 on March 7, 2005. In said communication the State was also requested to inform the Commission within two months as from the date of service of such Report on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations of the Commission therein contained; b) on April 15, 2005, the State requested an extension of the term set to accomplish the foregoing, on the grounds that the Report on the Merits had not been attached in full to the communication of April 11. The entire version of the Report was received a month later, on May 12, 2005. This resulted in unfavorable conditions for the State regarding the term it had been granted to inform the Commission on the measures adopted to comply with its recommendations, as the original two-month term to accomplish it was not extended; c) again, on June 15, 2005, the State requested that an extension of such term be granted so that it may have the three-month term set forth in Article 51 of the Convention, which was dismissed; d) on July 11, 2005 the State filed with the Commission its report on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations contained in Report on the Merits No. 30/05, thus fulfilling its duty to inform the Commission of such measures within the term set to that purpose; e) it is to be assumed with good reason that the application against the Chilean State was drawn up without having seen, or even hurriedly considered, the communication of July 11, 2005 on the measures