19 (Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 34; Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Judgment, 1933, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 53, p. 71; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1978, para. 42). 78. The Court has declared that certain formalities may be excluded, provided that there is a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty. (Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 42; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 77, para. 38; Castillo Páez, Preliminary Objections, supra 56, para. 34, and Loayza Tamayo, Preliminary Objections, supra 56, para. 33). In the exercise of its authority to evaluate due process before the Court (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 56, para. 34; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 56, para. 39; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 56, para. 37), it deems that in the present case the essential matters implicit in the procedural rules of the Convention have been respected. 79. In view of the foregoing, the Court determines that this preliminary objection is not admissible. Sixth Objection 80. The sixth objection interposed by the State concerns the lack of standing of the Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas (FASIC) and of those who the Commission referred in points thirteen and fourteen of the application as “another group of complainants” or “a second group of petitioners” [and sovereignty]. 81. The Court summarizes in the following manner the arguments of the State and the Commission concerning this objection: a. b. The State pointed out that the aforementioned persons lack standing under Article 44 of the Convention, “to raise questions about the sovereign actions taken by the Peruvian authorities.” The alleged victims “surreptitiously entered [Peru] and devoted themselves to subverting the established order, associating themselves with a terrorist organization.” The questioning of the sovereign acts of Peru is made by “an alleged legal entity under non Peruvian private law and/or third persons who are unidentified or whose identity is not known to the Peruvian State and who presumably are not of Peruvian nationality.” “This concerns professional international terrorists, as they have been characterized even by the Chilean authorities.” The alleged victims repudiated the conditions of Article 32 of the Convention and those set forth in the Peruvian Constitution then in force. During the public hearing Peru advised that “this objection touches on aspects of the case that should be heard with the merits, for which reason it reserved the right to support it at that time.” The Commission indicated that “the transition from a question of the domestic forum to the international forum is made by virtue of the existence of a treaty of other norm of international law that imposes an obligation.” It also asserted that, just as it stated in examining the prior objection, FASIC does have legal standing to lodge a complaint against Peru. It pointed out that