15 request of one of the parties, this would only be permissible if the request were presented before expiration of the period in question. On this issue, the Commission responded as follows: On the matter of the Third Preliminary Objection interposed, the Commission is of the opinion that the application had not expired, since the measure adopted on June 20, 1991, suspended the proceedings at the request of the Government of Peru and antedated the whole matter to February 20, 1991, the date of the approval of Report 29/91. [. . .] It is important to note that the Government was not damaged by the withdrawal and reopening of the proceeding. If anybody was affected it was the petitioners, for the action taken entailed the reexamination of a decision that had ruled in their favor, thus delaying the effective and timely protection to which they are entitled under the Convention. With this objection, the Government of Peru is attempting to classify as illegal an action that brought it no procedural damages whatsoever; to the contrary, it benefitted the Government by granting it fresh opportunities for its defense. The adage pas de nullité sans grief (there can be no nullity without damages) can be very aptly quoted in connection with this objection of expiration of the time limit for filing of the application. 48. The withdrawal of the application is not expressly regulated in the Convention, the Statutes of the Commission and the Court, the Regulations of the Commission or the Rules of Procedure of the Court. This does not mean that it is inadmissible. General principles of procedural law allow the applicant party to request a court not to process its application, provided the court has not begun to take up the case. As a rule, that stage begins with the notification of the other party. Furthermore, the foundation of the Court’s jurisdiction, as set forth in Article 61(1) of the Convention, lies in the will of the Commission or of the States Parties. 49. In a case before the Court, formal notification of the application does not occur automatically but requires a preliminary review by the President in order to determine whether the basic requirements of that action have been met. This is spelled out in Article 27 of the Rules in force, which reflects the long-standing practice of the Court. 50. The withdrawal of the application in the instant case cannot be deemed to be among those situations governed by Article 42 of the Rules applicable at the time of presentation of that application, because that rule refers to hypothetical cases where the dispute has already been brought before the Court, cases in which the parties, acting unilaterally or bilaterally, cannot freely waive the continuation of the proceedings because “[t]he Court may, having regard to its responsibilities, decide that it should proceed with the consideration of the case” (paragraph 3). 51. In the instant case, the request for withdrawal presented by the Commission occurred before the President of the Court was able to conduct the preliminary review of the application and, consequently, before he was in a position to order the notification of same. The President had not even been apprised of the communication of June 11, 1991, by which the Commission notified the Government that the case had been referred to the Court, as provided in Article 50(2) of the Regulations of the Commission. 52. The request for withdrawal was not, at first glance, unjustified or arbitrary. In its note of June 20, the Commission declared that the withdrawal was being