5 22. Article 30(3) of the Rules states that: “A Memorial shall contain a statement of the relevant facts, a statement of law, and the submissions.” 23. The instant case was referred to the Court by means of an application filed by the Commission on August 27, 1990. It was duly signed by the Executive Secretary of the Commission. According to the Rules, the memorial is not the document that brings the case before the Court but is, rather, the first procedural act that initiates the written part of the proceedings before the Court. 24. The relevant procedural norms applicable to this case do not establish, either as a formality or as a requirement for presentation, that the memorial must be signed. It goes without saying that all documents presented to the Court should bear a signature and that the Commission should have made sure that this was so in the instant case; however, the omission does not constitute non-compliance of a requirement, since the Rules do not require it. Here, moreover, it has been established that the memorial was sent by the Commission, leaving no doubt as to its authenticity. 25. The Government’s second contention, based on Articles 2(1) and 3(1) of the Statute of the Commission, Article 71(4) of the Regulations of the Commission and Article 21 of the Rules of the Court, was that the Commission had failed to comply with the aforementioned provisions by naming as Delegates the Executive Secretary and Assistant Executive Secretary who, while members of the staff of the Commission, are not members of the Commission as such. 26. The Commission responded that “[t]he delegates of the Commission were duly elected by the Commission itself at the appropriate time, and this fact was communicated to the Government.” The Commission argued that, in order to enjoy a degree of flexibility in its actions, it had appointed a team comprising various Delegates, including one of its members, the Executive Secretary and the Assistant Executive Secretary, and that a similar procedure had been followed in other cases decided by the Court. 27. Article 21 of the Rules provides that: “The Commission shall be represented by the delegates whom it designates. These delegates may, if they so wish, have the assistance of any person of their choice.” Therefore, the Court holds that the Commission fulfilled the requirements spelled out therein. The same argument is applicable to the appointment of the victim’s lawyer as a member of the Commission’s delegation. V 28. The Government presented the following preliminary objections: a. “Abuse of the Rights conferred by the Convention” on the Commission, b. non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, and, c. non-compliance of the provisions contained in Articles 47 to 51 of the Convention.