6 29. In the first preliminary objection, the Government is of the opinion that the Commission incurred an “abuse of the rights” by: (1) appropiating for itself the right to find a State responsible for violations of human rights; (2) breaking the “confidentiality rule;” (3) the manner it determined the evidence before the Court; and (4) “a result of the abuses committed and lack of proof” because the Commission incurred an “abuse of right of petition” in filing the case with the Court. 30. Without deciding whether or not there exists a preliminary objection such as the one that the Government describes as an “abuse of right,” the Court will now examine the Government’s contentions. 31. With regard to the first point raised, the Court considers that Article 50 of the Convention is clear when it provides that “[i]f a settlement is not reached, the Commission shall, within the time limit established by its Statute, draw up a report setting forth the facts and stating its conclusions [. . .]” When the Commission does what this provision provides, as it did in drawing up its Report N° 04/90 of May 15, 1990, it is fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. 32. Secondly, the Government deemed that the Commission had broken the confidentiality rule established in Articles 46(3) of the Rules of Procedures of the Court and 74 of the Regulations of the Commission by having “made public certain facts relating to the case and, furthermore, by having issued prior value judgments in a case still under consideration [. . .] seeking, Mala Fide, a double sanction not contemplated by the Convention.” The Government appears to be referring to the information on this case that was included in the Commission’s Annual Report for 1990-1991. The Commission denied having applied a double sanction, arguing that in the relevant part of its Annual Report to the General Assembly, it merely made a reference to the case and that the reports described in Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention were not published. 33. The Court notes that the aforementioned Annual Report of the Commission refers to the case but does not reproduce the report drawn up under Article 50 and that the case had already been filed with the Court when the Annual Report was published. Consequently, it cannot be contended that there existed a violation by the Commission of Article 74 of its Regulations, let alone a violation of Article 46(3) of the Rules of the Court, which refers to a very different situation. 34. The Government alleged “abuse of rights by the manner it determined the evidence before the Court,” and averred that “although the Commission did not expressly say so, in the instant case it resorted to an irregular presumption of certain facts under Article 42 of its Regulations, despite the fact that a different conclusion would be reached on the basis of the evidence provided by Suriname to the Commission.” The Commission, on its part, asserted that its conclusions are based on the investigation carried out and on the evidence obtained, and that the presumption provided for in Article 42 of its Regulations, according to which “[t]he facts reported in the petition [. . .] shall be presumed to be true [. . .] if [. . .] the government has not provided the pertinent information,” was not applied. 35. The Court found no evidence in the record showing that the Commission had resorted to the presumption referred to in Article 42 of its Regulations. 36. Both in the written proceedings and at the hearing, the Government failed to substantiate its claim that the Commission committed an “abuse of the right of