14 use of technological advances and modern electronic means to facilitate its communications, so that it may operate smoothly and promptly, without endangering legal certainty and procedural rights (cf. Paniagua Morales case. Preliminary Objections, supra 41, para. 35). 44. The Court therefore rejects the first preliminary objection because it is unfounded. 45. Regarding the fourth objection, the State declared that, since the Commission did not adopt the report under Article 51 of the Convention, the application suffers from a defect that results in the expiry of the three-month period during which it may be filed. This objection is closely linked to the first one. 46. Since this Court considers that the minutes of the telephone conference call are valid and, therefore, the filing of the application too, it proceeds to reject the fourth preliminary objection also, considering that the said application was filed within the period established to this effect. VII SECOND OBJECTION: Lis pendens 47. The second objection filed by the State refers to the alleged duplication of international proceedings. 48. In this respect, the State alleged: A. Arguments on the facts: 1. that the Trade Unions of Workers of the Institute of Hydraulic Resources and Electrification (hereinafter “SITIRHE”) and the National Telecommunications Institute (hereinafter “SITINTEL”) denounced the State before the ILO for enacting Law 25 of 1990 and for the alleged indiscriminate and mass dismissal of public sector workers who took part in a work stoppage on December 5, 1990; 2 that the ILO found Panama guilty of violating a series of international work norms; 3. that the ILO issued a resolution recommending a series of measures that should be complied with, under penalty of the application of international sanctions for the violation of ILO Conventions; 4. that the petitioners then presented an identical complaint to the Commission on January 18, 1994; 5. that the Commission did not declare case 11,325 inadmissible, knowing that the ILO had issued a resolution in 1995 condemning Panama for the mass dismissal of workers and that, subsequently, “in bad faith”, it omitted to mention the existence of this procedure for international settlement in its written application to the Court. B. Legal grounds: 1. that the Commission should not have accepted the petition that was presented and that, although it knew that a duplication of procedures existed, it not only admitted the said petition but prepared Report No. 37/97 and referred the case to the Court;