11 reports’ to which [the letter in question] refers are reports that have their normative basis in Article 51. This follows from the fact that the latter reports are the only ones that may be published, which is not true of the reports mandated by Article 50.” The Government adds that “if any of these reports to which the Articles [50 and 51] refer is to be characterized as ‘final,’ there is not the least doubt that the only ‘final’ report that the Commission is empowered to adopt is the report mentioned in Article 51.” 47. On this issue, the record contains the following evidence: a. Report Nº 31/91 of September 26, 1991, which resolves: “To include this report in the forthcoming Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States should no reply be received within 90 days of this report.” b. The Minutes for February 6, 1992, in which the Commission decided: “To confirm its reports on cases 10.319, 10.454, and 10.581, making new recommendations to the Government and granting it a period within which to comply with them. If the Commission’s recommendations are implemented, the report will not be published.” c. The letter of February 18, 1992, in which the Executive Secretary of the Commission informed the Government that she had decided to “confirm the reports previously approved by [it], postponing the decision as to the publication thereof until the next session.” d. In reply to the letter dated the 24 of that same month, addressed to him by the Ambassador of Colombia to the OAS and requesting a clarification of the term “confirm the reports previously approved by the Commission,” the President of the Commission, by letter dated February 28, 1992, declared that “the IACHR will be making a final decision as to the publication of the reports during its 82nd Session.” e. Report Nº 31/92 of September 25, 1992, pursuant to which it was decided to refer the case to the Court, makes no reference whatsoever to publication, thus re-establishing the period mentioned in Article 51(1). f. The Commission’s response to the Government’s contentions, according to which: The Government contends that the phrase [‘the Commission will be making a final decision as to the publication (of the report)’] confused it because it led it to believe that the Commission had abandoned the option of referring the case to the Court and would be initiating the procedure to which the report under Article 51 of the Convention refers. The Court also examined this situation in the Velásquez Case, as a result of the objection raised by Honduras bearing on the transmittal to the Court of the Velásquez Rodríguez, Godínez Cruz and Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Cases and the simultaneous publication of the reports thereon in the Commission’s Annual Report for the year 1985-1986. On that occasion, the Court decided that due to the fact that ‘according to Article 51 of the Convention, it is the drafting of the report that is conditional on the failure to file a case with the Court and not the filing of a case that is conditional on the report not having been prepared or published,’ the simultaneous implementation of both procedural actions could affect the juridical value of the published report but would not affect the admissibility of the application before the Court. This did not occur in the instant case; nevertheless, it is useful to underscore the Court’s decision, for it found that even if the report were published this would not fatally impair the proceedings before the Court. Consequently, the reference to publication that appears