9 27. The Court reiterates the criterion followed in its case law,3 that in exercising its obligatory jurisdiction it is empowered to hear “all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of [the] Convention” (Art. 62(3)). The broad wording of the Convention indicates that the Court has full jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to a case. It is therefore competent to decide whether any of the rights and liberties recognized by the Convention have been violated, and to adopt the appropriate provisions derived from such a situation; but it is also competent to decide on the procedural prerequisites that are the basis for its possibility of hearing the case and to verify compliance with all procedural norms involving “interpretation or application of the provisions of [the] Convention.” In exercising this authority, the Court is not bound by what the Commission may have previously decided, but rather is empowered to freely adjudicate, in accordance with its own appraisal. 28. In accordance with the context of application of the Convention and its object and purpose, norms pertaining to procedures must be applied on the basis of a criterion of reasonability, because otherwise it would cause an imbalance among the parties and would jeopardize the realization of justice.4 As the Court has stated, under international jurisdiction it is essential to maintain the conditions required for the procedural rights of the parties to not be diminished or unbalanced, and to attain the aims for which the various procedures were designed.5 29. The Court must analyze the procedure before the Commission, in light of the provisions of Articles 50 and 51(1) of the American Convention. Article 50 of the Convention states that: 1. If a settlement is not reached, the Commission shall, within the time limit established by its Statute, draw up a report setting forth the facts and stating its conclusions. If the report, in whole or in part, does not represent the unanimous agreement of the members of the Commission, any member may attach to it a separate opinion. The written and oral statements made by the parties in accordance with paragraph 1.e of Article 48 shall also be attached to the report. 2. The report shall be transmitted to the States concerned, which shall not be at liberty to publish it. 3. In transmitting the Report, the Commission may make such proposals and recommendations as it sees fit. 3 See Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 82, para. 71; Benjamín et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 81, para. 71; Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 80, para. 80; Las Palmeras Case. Preliminary Objections. February 4, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 67, para. 32; Cesti Hurtado Case. Preliminary Objections. January 26, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 49, para. 44 and 52; Cantoral Benavides Case. Preliminary Objections. September 3, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 40, para. 46; Godínez Cruz Case. Preliminary Objections. June 26, 1987 Judgment. Series C No. 3, para. 32; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case. Preliminary Objections. June 26, 1987 Judgment. Series C No. 2, para. 34; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. June 26, 1987 Judgment. Series C No. 1, para. 29. 4 Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Preliminary Objections. January 25, 1996 Judgment. Series C No. 23, para. 40. 5 See the Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. November 18, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 61, para. 41; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Preliminary Objections, supra nota 4, para. 42; and Gangaram Panday Case. Preliminary Objections. December 4, 1991 Judgment. Series C No. 12, para. 18.