at the appropriate procedural stage before the Commission, so that filing them before the Court is time-barred, because it does not comply with one of the formal conditions for this preliminary objection. 25 Consequently, the Court rejects the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies filed by the Dominican Republic. B) “Inadmissibility of the application owing to expiry of the time frame for the report under Article 50 of the Convention” Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 25. The State argued that the application is inadmissible because the Commission issued the report under Article 50 of the American Convention without respecting the period of 180 days established in Article 23(2) of its Statute, a time frame referred to in Article 50(1) of the Convention. According to the State, this period must be calculated taking into account the reasons established in Article 40(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure to consider the friendly settlement procedure concluded; therefore, it must be calculated from May 16, 2001, when the petitioners stated clearly and consistently their intention to end the friendly settlement procedure. In addition, it should have been taken into account that, after April 25, 1997, the Dominican Republic “did not demonstrate any intention of reaching a friendly settlement.” The State indicated that “the Commission should have produced the merits report by November 12, 2001, at the latest.” According to the State “the failure to produce the report under Article 50 of the [Convention …] in eight years is more than unreasonable and inconsistent with due process before the inter-American system, pacta sunt servanda in compliance with treaties, and the principles of legal certainty and the predictability of the system for its actors.” The State based this argument on the Court’s decision in the case of Cayara v. Peru. In addition, it argued that, since the time frame for the report under Article 50 of the Convention had expired, “it was not possible for the [Commission] to present the application in question [… and,] the appropriate course, [… was] the issue of the second report established in Article 51(1) in fine of the American Convention.” 26. The Commission indicated that it had “processed the instant case in keeping with [its] powers under the Convention and its Rules of Procedure, issuing the respective reports on admissibility and merits when it had all the necessary elements to do so,” and that “both parties participated in all the stages, which respected the adversarial principle.” The Commission observed that “the Dominican State has not indicated how an alleged delay in the approval of the merits report affected its right to defense in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission; therefore the Court should reject this preliminary objection.” 27. The representatives argued that “the State has never indicated that the Commission’s actions have given rise to a grave error or a harm that limited its right to defense and therefore warrant a review of the proceedings by the Court.” In addition, they argued that the assertion that the friendly settlement procedure had concluded as of May 16, 2001, was incorrect. They also affirmed that the State had “promoted the continuation of the dialogue” after April 25, 1997, and referred to several actions in this regard. In addition, they indicated that, “on several occasions, they had asked that the process be terminated, but they were also open to discuss the possibility of reaching a satisfactory agreement,” and that the State, “on numerous occasions, gave the appearance of wanting to continue the dialogue.” 25 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 26, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011, Series C No. 226, para. 16. 11