12 Commission dated June 20, signed by its Chairman, indicating that the application was being withdrawn at the request of the Government of Peru and in order to ensure that no questions arise as to the correct application of the proceedings, as well as to protect the interests of both parties (the Government and the petitioners), has decided for the time being to withdraw the case from the Court, in order to reconsider it and possibly present it again at some future date, after the observations submitted by the Government of Peru with regard to the instant case have been properly assessed. After consulting with the Permanent Commission, the Secretary simply took note of the withdrawal. On August 26, the Government, which had received from the Commission a note dated June 11, informing it of the filing of the application and another dated June 20, communicating the withdrawal thereof, stated that the application had not been withdrawn at its request but was, instead, a unilateral act by the Commission. After the file returned to the Commission, the latter complied with some of the requests contained in the Government’s communication of May 27, such as transmitting to it the replies of the petitioners dated November 1, 1989, and July 18, 1990. However, as the Executive Secretary of the Commission explained to the Court at the public hearing, the original report was only amended as to style. The Commission issued a resolution and another report bearing the same number but a different date, and filed a new application with the Court on February 14, 1992. 37. The Court has on other occasions analyzed certain aspects of Article 51 of the Convention (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 62 et seq.; Neira Alegría et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 32), but not the characteristics or conditions of the time limit contemplated in paragraph 1 of that article. In order to arrive at a satisfactory resolution of the objections interposed by the Government, it is necessary to refer to it. In doing so, moreover, the Court must ratify its often stated opinion that the object and purpose of the treaty is the effective protection of human rights and that the interpretation of all its provisions must be subordinated to that object and purpose, as provided in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, op. cit., para. 30). 38. In the case of Neira Alegría et al., the Court had already found that, since it can be extended, the period contemplated in Article 51(1) is not final (Neira Alegría et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 37, paras. 32, 33 and 34). Nevertheless, legal certainty requires that States know what norms they are to follow. The Commission cannot be permitted to apply the time limits in arbitrary fashion, particularly when these are spelled out in the Convention. 39. Article 51(1) provides that the Commission must decide within the three months following the transmittal of its report whether to submit the case to the Court or to subsequently set forth its own opinion and conclusions, in either case when the matter has not been settled. While the period is running, however, a number of circumstances could develop that would interrupt it or even require the drafting of a new report or the resumption of the period from the beginning. In each case it will be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine whether or not the time limit expired and what circumstances, if any, could reasonably have interrupted the period.