13 40. In the instant case, the report was sent on March 1, 1991, and the time limit would therefore have expired on May 31. The original application was received at the Court by fax on Monday, June 3, that is, three days after the calendar day on which the period would have expired, had the extension sought by Peru not affected it, in which case the expiration would have occurred on June 5. The Court will not comment on this fact at the present time, as it will also not comment on the fact that the Commission extended the periods. An application containing such serious charges as those which are before us now cannot be deemed to have lapsed simply on those grounds. 41. Peru stated at the public hearing that “the application arrived in due form on June 7, 1991 (the date on which the file was received), for it was only on that date that the requirements stipulated in Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court then in force were complied with.” 42. The former Rules of Procedure of the Court, applicable to the instant application, established in its Article 25(2) that “[i]f the Commission intends to bring a case before the Court [. . .] it shall file with the Secretary, together with its report, in twenty copies, its duly signed application.” In the instant case, the application was received before the report, the former having arrived at the Court on June 3, 1991, and the latter at the Secretariat of the Court on June 7. The rule quoted above must not be applied in a way that distorts the object and purpose of the Convention. It is generally accepted that the procedural system is a means of attaining justice and that the latter cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities. Keeping within certain timely and reasonable limits, some omissions or delays in complying with procedure may be excused, provided that a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty is preserved. A very different issue is, of course, raised by consideration of the effect on the time limit of the Commission’s withdrawal of the application in order to resubmit it at a much later date. That issue will be analyzed in due course. V 43. The Court will now examine the objections interposed by the Government in the instant case. 44. The first three objections are based on the withdrawal of the case by the Commission after it had been submitted to the Court. Hence, the three objections should be dealt with together. 45. In the first objection, which the Government has labelled “lack of jurisdiction of the Commission,” the Government contends that “[t]he applicant lost its jurisdiction to deal with the case on May 30, 1991, the date on which it submitted it to the Court. Hence, all of its subsequent acts aimed at regaining jurisdiction and at attempting to amend its own errors are invalid because they originate in an unjust decision to withdraw the case.” On this issue, the Commission responded as follows: [. . .] the protection of procedural balance and, especially, of the right of defense of the states is a fundamental requirement of the proceedings at issue. In the instant case, the