13 it,28 given that a complaint or discrepancy regarding criteria related to the Commission’s actions is not sufficient.29 28. The Court deems it important to mention that, given that Article 44 of the Commission Rules of Procedure regulates the submission of a case before the Court, there is no provision in the Convention, in the Court Rules of Procedure or in the Commission Rules that regulates in an express manner the analysis or evaluation that the Commission must carry out regarding the State’s response to the recommendations. There is also not a minimum time period established from the time when the State presents its response to the recommendations formulated in the report of Article 50 of the Convention, for the Commission to decide whether to submit the case before the Court.30 29. The Court notes that the Inter-American Commission submitted the present case to the Court two days after Brazil presented its partial report on the recommendations adopted by said organ in its Report on the Merits No. 91/08, after the concession of two extensions for the State, the last of which expired on March 22, 2009. Likewise, the Court observed that the State forwarded the partial report to the Commission with a delay of two days, on March 24, 2009.31 Namely, despite the expiration of the time period granted by the Commission, it waited for the State to inform on whether it had adopted specific measures aimed at complying with the recommendations, before deciding whether it was appropriate to submit the case to the Court. 30. Legal certainty demands that States know how to comply with the procedures before the Inter-American System of Human Rights.32 As a consequence, if the Commission grants a time period for the State to comply with the recommendations of the report, it must wait for the State to respond within the period of time established for it to do so and evaluate whether submitting the case to the Court is the most favorable alternative for the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention,33 or if, to the contrary, the measures adopted by the State to comply with the recommendations of the Commission constitute a positive contribution to the development of the process and to the compliance of the obligations established in the American Convention.34 In the present case, there is no notice of an error or failure to observe conventional norms or regulations governing the referral of the case by the Commission to this Court, Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 22, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 18, para. 31. 28 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees, supra note 27, para. 66; Case of Escher et al., supra note 27, para. 23, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 18, para. 31. 29 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 32; Case of Escher et. al., supra note 27, para. 23, and Case of Cepeda Vargas, supra note 18, para. 31. 30 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Preliminary Objection, supra note 26, para. 32. 31 Cf. Answer to the application (case file on the merits, tome II, folio 552). 32 Cf. Case of Cayara. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 38, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, Preliminary Objection, supra note 26, para. 35. 33 Cf. Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 54; Case of the Saramaka People. v. Suriname, supra note 29, para. 39, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 20. 34 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, Preliminary Objection, supra note 26, para. 35.