13 The representative did not file any arguments regarding the alleged violation in the processing of the case. Considerations of the Court 55. The second preliminary objection raised by the State is related to two main issues: i) the “hasty” referral of the instant case to the Court by the Commission without having considered the report submitted by the State regarding its compliance with the recommendations contained in the Report on the Merits issued by the Commission, and ii) the fact that the decision of the Commission to refer the instant case to the Court was prior to the submission of such report by the State, since the representative of the alleged victims had been allegedly requested to refer the “facts regarding the case.” 56. As to the first argument submitted by the State, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Article 51(1) of the American Convention: If, within a period of three months from the date of the transmittal of the report of the Commission to the states concerned, the matter has not either been settled or submitted by the Commission or by the state concerned to the Court and its jurisdiction accepted, the Commission may, by the vote of an absolute majority of its members, set forth its opinion and conclusions concerning the question submitted for its consideration. 57. that: For its part, Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission states After the deliberation and vote on the merits of the case, the Commission shall proceed as follows: […] 2. If it establishes one or more violations, it shall prepare a preliminary report with the proposals and recommendations it deems pertinent and shall transmit it to the State in question. In so doing, it shall set a deadline by which the State in question must report on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations. The State shall not be authorized to publish the report until the Commission adopts a decision in this regard. […] 58. The deadlines set in the foregoing articles are not the same. The term of three months set in Article 51(1) of the Convention is the maximum term within which the Inter-American Commission may submit a case to the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, after which this power of the Commission expires. For its part, Article 43(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission sets the maximum term allowed for a State to inform the Commission regarding the measures adopted to comply with its recommendations, term which is set by the Commission itself. 59. In the instant case, no controversy was aroused by the parties over the fact that the Commission informed the State of Report on the Merits No. 30/05 on April 11, 2005, by means of a communication which set June 11, 2005 as the deadline for the State to inform the Commission regarding the measures adopted to comply with its recommendations. Notwithstanding, on that date (April 11, 2005) the State did not receive the full version of Report No. 30/05, which was received by the State on May 12, 2005. This delay gave grounds to the request filed by the State on June 24, 2005 so that an extension of the term set to file the report on compliance be granted