9 VI FIRST AND FOURTH OBJECTION: Non-compliance with Article 51 and Expiry of the Application 28. The first objection filed by the State refers to the Commission’s alleged noncompliance with the provisions of the Convention and the Regulations of the Commission regarding the decision to refer the case to the Court. 29. To justify this objection, the State presented the arguments on the facts and legal points that the Court summarizes below: a) that on October 17, 1997, during its 97th session, the Commission forwarded to Panama, Report No. 37/97 on case 11,325, adopted the previous day; b) that the Commission did not act in accordance with the rules established in Article 51 of the Convention, and Articles 46.2, 46.3, 46.4, 46.5 and 46.6, 50.1, 47.2 and 73.1.b of the Regulations of the Commission on the procedure for referring a case to the Court, as no resolution of the Commission deciding on this referral was recorded; c) that, according to Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention, the Commission has to prepare two different reports. In this case, the Commission only adopted and issued the report referred to in Article 50. According to the State, the report referred to in Article 51.1 of the Convention is of a final nature and is the only instrument in which the referral of a case to the Court may be stipulated; d) that at no time did the Commission proceed according to the procedural rules cited above, since it agreed to refer case 11,325 to the Court “on the basis of on an interpretation of the procedural rules that was clearly erroneous and in bad faith”, using an informal and irregular procedure based on a telephone consultation with five of its seven members, entitled “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”; and e) that the minutes of the telephone conference call between the members of the Commission did not comply with the procedural formalities, so that it violates the rules of the Convention and its Regulations, under which there is no authorization for the Commission to hold a “Session-Conference Call” by telephone, take a decision, and refer a contested case to the Court in this way. 30. The Court summarizes the arguments of the Commission on the first objection filed by the State below: a) that Article 51 of the Convention establishes two alternatives: the referral of the case to the Court or the preparation of the corresponding report. The adoption of one of these alternatives excludes the other;