3 j. k. l. inadmissibility of the application due to improper joining of four cases before the Commission; inadmissibility of the application due to manifest bias on the part of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; and, lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Secretariat transmitted the preliminary objections to the Commission on the following day, reminding it that it had a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such objections in which to file a brief with regard thereto. The Commission’s observations were received by the Secretariat on April 29, 1992 and distributed to the persons named in Article 28(1) of the Rules. 7. In his communication of March 26, 1992, the Agent requested the suspension of the proceedings on the merits until a determination was made on the preliminary objections, pursuant to Article 31 of the Rules. Acting on instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the Government on April 22, 1992, that the proceedings on the merits would only be suspended if the full Court so decided. In the meantime, the periods would continue to run normally. 8. On May 27, 1992, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the Permanent Commission of the Court (hereinafter “the Permanent Commission”), informed the parties that a public hearing would be held at the seat of the Court on June 24, at 10:00 hours, on the preliminary objections interposed by Peru and the observations thereon submitted by the Commission. The President convened the public hearing by Order of June 19, 1992. 9. In its communication regarding the preliminary objections and, later, by note of May 27, 1992, the Government requested the Secretariat to certify “the receipt of the first application regarding the CAYARA CASE on May 30, 1991 and its subsequent withdrawal ” as well as “the legal value of the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Inter-American Court in which it was agreed to grant the plaintiff’s request to withdraw the application submitted.” The Government likewise requested that the Court require the Commission to send, within a period fixed by the Court, “a copy of the minutes of the October 27, 1991, meeting of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which approved Resolution 1/91 and the second Report 29/91 [. . .] under penalty if it is shown that it was approved when the Commission was not in session.” On May 28, 1992, the Secretariat informed the Government that the Permanent Commission had determined that the Government’s requests that the documents offered with the preliminary objections brief be dealt with and that the Commission be asked to provide its minutes were issues that could not be resolved by the President alone, but required a decision by the full Court. That same day, Peru insisted that the production of any evidence still pending be ordered, since by June 24, 1992, the date on which the public hearing was to take place, “no evidence should still be pending, to ensure that the Court is able to ‘decide thereafter’.” 10. On June 23, 1992, the Secretariat, on instructions of the Court, certified the following: 1. That on Monday, June 3, 1991, a letter dated May 30, 1991, was received by fax from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The purpose of the letter was to ‘transmit... Report No. 29/91 concerning cases Nos. 10.264, 10.206, 10.276 and 10.446 against the Government of Peru...,’ in view of the fact that ‘during its 79th Session, the