10 53. Thus, the failure to conduct an on-site investigation in the instant case does not affect the admissibility of the petition. X 54. In its submissions and at the hearing, the Government pursued a similar line of reasoning, arguing that, pursuant to Article 48 (1) (e) of the Convention and before adopting Resolution 32/83, the Commission was obligated to hold a preliminary hearing to clarify the allegations. In that Resolution, the Commission accepted the allegations as true, based on the presumption set forth in Article 42 (formerly 39) of the Regulations of the Commission. 55. The Commission contended that neither Article 48 (1) (e) of the Convention nor Article 43 of its Regulations require a preliminary hearing to obtain additional information before the issuance of the report and that, moreover, the Government did not request such a hearing. 56. The Court holds that a preliminary hearing is a procedural requirement only when the Commission considers it necessary to complete the information or when the parties expressly request a hearing. At the hearing, the Commission may ask the representative of the respondent State for any relevant information and, upon request, may also receive oral or written submissions from the interested parties. 57. Neither the petitioners nor the Government asked for a hearing in the instant case, and the Commission did not consider one necessary. 58. Consequently, the Court rejects the preliminary objection raised by the Government. XI 59. In its motion concerning admissibility, the Government asked the Court to rule that the case should not have been referred to the Court, under Article 61 (2) of the Convention, because the Commission had not exhausted the procedures established in Articles 48 to 50 of the Convention. The Government also referred to the absence of any attempt to bring about a friendly settlement under the terms of Article 48 (1) (f), an issue which has already been dealt with by the Court (supra 45-49), and to other aspects of the handling of this case which, in the Government's opinion, did not meet the requirements of Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention. The Court will analyze the grounds for the latter contentions after making some general observations on the procedure set forth in Articles 48 to 50 of the Convention and the relationship of these provisions to Article 51. This analysis is necessary in order to place the Government's objections within the legal context in which they must be decided. 60. Article 61 (2) of the Convention provides: In order for the Court to hear a case, it is necessary that the procedures set forth in Articles 48 to 50 shall have been completed. 61. Notwithstanding the statements made in paragraphs 32 and 33 the procedures set forth in Articles 48 to 50 of the Convention must be exhausted before an application can be filed with the Court. The purpose is to seek a solution acceptable to all parties before having recourse to a judicial body. Thus, the parties have an opportunity to resolve the conflict in a manner respecting the human rights recognized by the Convention before an application is filed with the Court and decided in a manner that does not require the consent of the parties. 62. The procedures of Articles 48 to 50 have a broader objective as regards the international protection of human rights: compliance by the States with their obligations and, more