11 34. The Inter-American Commission decided to file the instant case with the Court the same day that Colombia submitted its reply to the recommendations adopted by the Commission in Report No. 76/00, and it filed the application with the Court five days later. In other words, the Commission waited for the State to report whether or not it had adopted specific measures to comply with the recommendations, before deciding whether it was convenient to file the case with the Court; in fact, it was filed with the Court on January 24, 2001, the day when the three-month period set forth in the Convention for filing of the case before the Court would expire. 35. It is a commonly accepted principle that the procedural system is a means for realization of justice, and that justice must not be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities.8 Nevertheless, legal certainty requires that the States know what to expect.9 Therefore, if the Commission grants a State a period to comply with the recommendations set forth in the report, it must wait until the State has replied within the period granted and assess the reply so as to decide whether filing the case with the Court is the most favorable alternative to protect rights set forth in the Convention, or whether, instead, steps taken by the State to comply with the Commission’s recommendations are a positive contribution to development of the process and to compliance with the obligations established in the American Convention, to ensure that alleged violations of human rights by the State are investigated, that those responsible for said violations are punished, and that reparations be made for their consequences. 36. While the Convention does not state that the Commission must analyze the State’s reply for a given period before deciding to file the case with the Court (supra para. 32), the Commission stated that it reached this decision because, upon analyzing that reply, it deemed that it “did not reflect that concrete measures had been adopted or that true and explicit commitments had been undertaken regarding compliance with the recommendations made in Report 76/00.” This, in the opinion of the Court, is not the object of a preliminary objection.10 37. The State referred several times to good faith, but the Court deems that it has not shown that the Commission did not act in good faith in the instant case. 38. Based on the aforementioned considerations, this Court deems that the behavior of the Commission did not affect Colombia’s right to due process, pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention, nor did it deny the State the exercise of any other right recognized by that treaty. 39. The preliminary objection examined above is the only one mentioned, as such, in the brief on preliminary objections filed by the State, in the brief with observations by the Commission, and at the public hearing held for this purpose. 40. Due to all of the above, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection raised by the State. 8 See. Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 5, para. 43; Loayza Tamayo Case. Preliminary Objections. January 31, 1996 Judgment. Series C No. 25, para. 33; and Castillo Páez Case. Preliminary Objections. Janyary 30, 1996 Judgment. Series C No. 24, para. 34. 9 See Cayara Case. Preliminary Objections. February 3, 1993 Judgment. Series C No. 14, para. 38. See Genie Lacayo Case. Preliminary Objections. January 27, 1995 Judgment. Series C No. 21, para. 46. 10