10 b) that, in this case, it expressly acknowledges that it did not adopt the report of Article 51 of the Convention, since this was not in order as the case had been referred to the Court; c) that the decision of the Commission had to be taken while it was not in session since, to the contrary, the three-month period would have expired; d) that it took the decision to refer the case to the Court within a period of three months from the transmittal of its report to the State, in accordance with the terms of the Convention and the jurisprudence of the Court; e) that it proceeded to hold a telephone conference call, as it has repeatedly done in similar cases, with the participation of five of its seven members on this occasion; f) that Panama has never questioned the authenticity of the minutes of the Commission recording its decision to refer the case to the Court. It has only questioned the way in which the adoption of the decision was executed; g) that it used the procedures established in the provisions of the Convention and the Regulations, and to this end used its internal working methods and the facilities offered by modern telecommunications technology (cf. Paniagua Morales case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 35); h) that the members of the Commission do not reside at the seat of the Commission and, as this is not a permanent institution, it is difficult and unnecessary to hold a special session, particularly when the possibility that the period for presenting an application may expire is taken into consideration; i) that it adapted and interpreted the provisions of its Regulations in accordance with the needs imposed by the time limits established in the Convention and the circumstance of not being a permanent institution; j) that neither the Convention nor the Regulations of the Commission nor the Rules of Procedure of the Court require the Commission to adopt a decision to refer a case to the Court by a special report that is adopted in the physical presence of all the members of the Commission, but rather the filing of an application is the expression of the intention to refer a case to the Court; k) that it had complied with the formalities established in the Regulations of the Commission: that the Chairman should submit the matter to the Commission’s consideration, that the majority of the members of the Commission should take part in the deliberations, that the decisions should be adopted by the majority of the participants and that the Secretariat should write up the minutes; l) that it could not take a decision to refer the case to the Court during its 97th session when it adopted the report under Article 50 of the Convention, because it would have prejudged Panama’s compliance or non-compliance with its recommendations;