21 a. b. The State argued that the Commission, in its Ninety-Fifth Regular Session, approved Report 17/97 that was transmitted to the State on April 24, 1997. On June 5 of the same year, the Commission granted Peru an extension to comment on that Report, which ended on July 8, 1997. On June 27, 1997, despite the fact that the additional time period was running, the Commission made the decision to sent the case to the Court. According to the State, said decision was premature and constituted a “prejudgment that invalidated the act of the Commission and nullified the submission of the application, because it infringed on an elementary guarantee related to the right to due process.” The Commission stated that pursuant to Article 51 of the Convention, it could send the case to the Court on the latest date of July 24, 1997. On June 27, 1997, it decided to do so, subject to the possible implementation of the recommendations by Peru. Peru, by means of a July 8, 1997 note, received by the Commission on July 10, rejected the recommendations contained in the Report, for which reason, the Commission argued, it was not necessary to reconsider the decision it had adopted. Moreover, it stated that Peru had not indicated in what way it was prejudiced by the disputed decision. Finally, during the public hearing, the Commission added that it found it necessary to make this decision because “it does not meet on a permanent basis.” 88. As to this objection, the Court states that the decision adopted by the Commission to submit the case to the Court, a decision that the Commission explained as being a function of its work system and of the schedule that governs its sessions, did not result in the immediate submission of the application to the Court. In explanation of the preceding observation, it is useful to recall the relevant dates in the examination of this objection. The extension of the time period requested by Peru and granted by the Commission was to expire on July 8, 1997. According to the Commission, its decision to send the case to the Court was made on June 27, subject to “the possible implementation of the recommendations” contained in the Report. Peru sent its observations on July 10 and in them rejected the recommendations of the Commission. Finally, the Commission filed the application on July 22, which was almost a month after deciding to do so and two weeks after the expiration of the extension of the initial deadline and after the State refused to heed the recommendations of the Commission. This circumstance shows that Peru was not affected by a de facto interruption in the time period it had been granted, and reinforces the statement of the Commission that the performance of the agreement of June 27 was subject to the answer that was to be provided by the State. It is apparent that the mere decision adopted by the Commission on June 27 did not prejudice the State in any way. 89. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court determines that this preliminary objection is inadmissible. X AMBIGUITY IN THE MANNER OF SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION