10 Article 51(1) of the American Convention establishes that: 1. If, within a period of three months from the date of the transmittal of the report of the Commission to the states concerned, the matter has not either been settled or submitted by the Commission or by the state concerned to the Court and its jurisdiction accepted, the Commission may, by the vote of an absolute majority of its members, set forth its opinion and conclusions concerning the question submitted for its consideration. 30. In this regard, the Court has previously stated6, with respect to the procedure set forth in Article 51 of the Convention, that: […] if within a period of three months the matter has not been solved by the State to which the preliminary report was addressed, taking into account the proposals made in that report, the Commission is empowered, within that period, to decide whether it will submit the case to the Court by filing the respective application or whether it will continue to hear the matter. This decision is not discretionary, but rather must be based on whatever alternative is most favorable to protect the rights set forth in the Convention. 31. The Court deems that the assessment by the Commission regarding whether or not it is convenient to file a case before the Court must be the result of a collective and autonomous exercise carried out by the Commission as the oversight body of the American Convention and, therefore, the motives for its filing of a case cannot be the object of a preliminary objection. However, what can be the object of a preliminary objection is the omission or violation of all or any of the procedural steps set forth in Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention, in such a manner as to cause procedural imbalance or defenselessness of one of the parties in the case before the Court. 32. In this regard, it is important to note that there is no provision in the Convention nor in the Rules of Procedure of the Court and of the Commission that explicitly regulates aspects pertaining to the analysis or the assessment that the Commission must make of the reply by the State to the recommendations set forth in the report under Article 50 of the Convention, nor has it been established that a minimum period should elapse after the State submits the aforementioned proposal, for the Commission to decide to file the case with the Court. 33. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the Commission has discretionary, but in no way arbitrary powers, to decide, in each case, whether the State’s reply to the report issued in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention is convenient or adequate. In adopting the decision to file or not to file the case with the Court, the Commission must choose the alternative that is most favorable to protect the rights set forth in the Convention.7 6 See Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 5, para. 37; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. Preliminary Objections, January 21, 1994 Judgment. Series C No. 17, para. 49 and Certain powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights), July 16, 1993 Advisory Opinion OC-13/93. Series A No. 13, para. 50. 7 See Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 5, para. 37; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, para. 26 and 49; and Certain powers of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights), July 16, 1993 Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, supra note 6, para. 50.