13 condition that the report in this article has not been published. If the Commission prepares or publishes the report under Article 51, despite having presented the case to the Court, it is clear that it has applied the Convention improperly. In view of the foregoing, Panama interpreted the applicable rules erroneously. 39. The Court considers that there is an evident confusion between filing the application and drawing up the report under Article 51 of the Convention. As the Court has already declared (supra, para. 38), these two options are mutually exclusive and both are not required for a case to be referred to this Court. 40. According to the State, the “Minutes of the telephone conference call between members of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to decide on [the] referral to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the case of the workers of the State of Panama dismissed under Law 25 of 1990”, “is an informal, irregular procedure based on an interpretation of the procedural rules that was clearly erroneous and in bad faith”. In this respect, the Commission declared that it had to take the decision in this way because, to the contrary, the three-month period would have expired, and that it did so in accordance with the terms of the Convention, its Regulations and the jurisprudence of the Court (supra, para. 30.c, e, g and j). 41. The Court proceeds to analyze the validity of the minutes of the Commission’s telephone conference call. As regards the observation of certain formalities, the Court has declared that it is essential to respect the conditions necessary for the full exercise of procedural rights and in order to achieve the objectives for which the procedures in the Convention and the regulations of the Commission and the Court have been established (cfr: Castillo Petruzzi case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 77; Paniagua Morales et al. case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 42; Gangaram Panday case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 18; Godínez Cruz case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 36; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 38; Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 33.) 42. Furthermore, this Court has stated that [t]he Court must preserve a fair balance between the protection of human rights, which is the ultimate purpose of the system, and the legal certainty and procedural equity that will ensure the stability and reliability of international protection [because, to the contrary] it would result in the loss of authority and credibility that are indispensable to organs charged with administering the system of human rights protection (Cayara case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 63 and Caballero Delgado and Santana case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C. No. 17, para. 44). 43. There is no provision in either the Convention, the Rules of Procedure of the Court or the Regulations of the Commission that determines how the Commission should decide to refer a case to the Court. In view of this regulatory vacuum, the Commission has a certain margin of discretion, on condition that the procedural rights of the parties are respected. This Court considers that, in the instant case, the Commission complied with the basic provisions of the Convention in this respect. Justice should not be sacrificed to mere formalities. It is important that a nonpermanent body such as the Commission may keep abreast of the times and make