8 a) in connection with the proceedings before the Commission, the State had almost three months to submit information on compliance with the recommendations made by the Commission, and the latter decided to postpone its decision to file the case with the Court –“and therefore the preparation of its application, which had to be drafted in four days”- until it was able to assess that information and reach that decision, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention. The Commission also stated that the file before it demonstrates that in the instant case the procedural stages set forth in Articles 44 to 50 of the Convention and in the Rules of Procedure of the Commission were strictly respected; b) the proposal filed by the State when it replied to Report No. 76/00 stated that the Ombudsman’s Office would prepare a report taking into account the opinion of the Commission, of the judicial and administrative authorities who heard the respective proceedings, and of those persons and institutions that it deemed relevant. The proposal also stated that the Ombudsman’s Office would set the periods and modes of compliance with the recommendations in its final report. Said proposal by the State expresses its intention to comply with the recommendations that the Ombudsman’s Office might make, rather than complying with the recommendations of the Commission. Furthermore, according to the Commission, the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Office might not coincide with the recommendations made by the Commission; c) since the proposal made by the State does not reflect concrete steps having been taken nor an explicit commitment regarding compliance with the recommendations issued in Report No. 76/00, the Commission deemed that the procedure set forth in Articles 48 to 50 of the Convention had been exhausted, and decided to file the case with the Court; d) expressions by the State regarding the possibility of complying with the recommendations of one of its internal control bodies, issued in accordance with domestic legislation, “do not relate in an evident manner” to the due process guarantees set forth in the American Convention, and it seeks to delay consideration of the grave facts that are the subject matter of the instant case as well as determination by the Court of their reparation; e) the objection raised by the State regarding competence of the Court does not refer in any way to specific steps taken to comply with the recommendations made in Report No. 76/00; and f) the object of the complaint raised by the State does not affect the norms that govern competence of the Court to hear the instant case, for which reason it should not be considered a preliminary objection proper. Considerations by the Court 26. This Court will examine the procedural issues that have been brought before it, so as to determine whether there are flaws in the procedure sufficient for in limine rejection of consideration of the merits of the case.