10 The Court has determined that Article 51(1) provides that the Commission must decide within the three months following the transmittal of its report whether to submit the case to the Court or to subsequently set forth its own opinion and conclusions, in either case when the matter has not been settled. While the period is running, however, a number of circumstances could develop that would interrupt it or even require the drafting of a new report or the resumption of the period from the beginning. In each case it will be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine whether or not the time limit expired and what circumstances, if any, could reasonably have interrupted the period. (Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 39.) 43. In this context, the request for reconsideration presented by the Government on January 16, 1992, could interrupt the 90-day period granted by the Commission to Colombia to enable it to comply with the recommendations of Report Nº 31/91. The controversy over whether that request was submitted before or after expiration of the 90 days can be explained by Article 51(1) of the Convention, which clearly provides that the period in question begins to run on the date of transmittal to the Government, for it is only then that the latter is apprised of the report and of the recommendations contained therein. Under those circumstances, the request for reconsideration was presented one day before the expiration of the term, which ended on January 17, 1992. 44. In accepting the preliminary objections interposed by Peru in the Cayara Case, the Court indicated that despite the fact that [i]t is generally accepted that the procedural system is a means of attaining justice and that the latter cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities, [k]eeping within certain timely and reasonable limits, some omissions or delays in complying with procedure may be excused, provided that a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty is preserved. (Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 42, para. 42.) And later added: The Court must preserve a fair balance between the protection of human rights, which is the ultimate purpose of the system, and the legal certainty and procedural equity that will ensure the stability and reliability of the international protection mechanism [because, to act otherwise,] would result in a loss of the authority and credibility that are indispensable to organs charged with administering the system for the protection of human rights. (ibid., para. 63.) 45. The Government has interposed this second objection on the ground that the Commission accepted an “untimely” request for reconsideration of the report presented by the Government itself pursuant to an article that was inapplicable, because it refers to States that are not Parties to the Convention. Regardless of the fact that, as has already been stated, the request was not out of time under Article 51(1) of the Convention, the Court must here recall what it already held in a previous case with regard to the good faith that should govern these issues (Neira Alegría et al. Case, supra 38, para. 35) and add that when a party requests something, even if such a request is based on an inapplicable provision, that party cannot later challenge the basis for its request once it has been complied with. 46. In interposing the objection under discussion, Colombia refers to other considerations that are deserving of a different response. Referring to the letter dated February 28, 1992, sent by the President of the Commission, the Government affirms that the phrases “to postpone its final decision on [the] Reports,” “the decision regarding their adoption as final reports has been suspended,” and “the Commission will be making a final decision as to the publication,” “clearly indicate that the Commission has agreed to postpone the adoption of the report drawn up pursuant to Article 51.” The Government adds that it has come to “the conclusion that the ‘final