9 Santana Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 17), the Government alleges that the Commission did not duly support its denial of a friendly settlement. 38. The Commission answered, among other arguments, that the reconciliation mechanism is not mandatory and is applied by it discretionarily, not arbitrarily, on the basis of the needs and characteristics of the case. The Commission added that Nicaragua did not intend to request a friendly settlement procedure since it always denied being responsible for the events that occurred in the instant case. Furthermore, "simply by reading Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission it is understandable that both the Government and the petitioner may at all times ask the Commission to initiate a reconciliation procedure." 39. In the jurisprudential development of this subject matter (Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Preliminary Objections, supra para. 37), which is subsequent to the date of the Commission's Report to which the Government refers, this Court has said that the Commission does not have arbitrary powers in this respect, but that it may, exceptionally and on the basis of essential arguments, circumvent the reconciliation procedure. In this case the Commission invoked only the "nature" of the matter. However, the avoidance of the friendly settlement procedure does not harm the Government, since the latter may apply for it at any time. It is evident that, in order to reach a friendly settlement, the resolute intervention of the parties involved, namely the Government and the victims, whose disposition to reach a friendly settlement is of the essence, is indispensable. While it is true that the Commission should have played an active role, it was within the Government's possibilities to apply for a friendly settlement and it did not do so. It then may not rightfully object to the Commission's decision. The Court deems such reasoning by the Government groundless. 40. The third point made by the Government as part of this objection is that the Commission did not correctly apply Article 51 of the Convention in the way this norm has been interpreted by this Court. (Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC 13/93 of July 16, 1993, Series A No. 13.) The Government feels that the Commission was wrong in considering, in the purpose of the application, that the Court should declare, on the basis of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, that the Government had violated Article 51(2) of the Convention for failure to comply with the recommendations formulated by the Commission. In the Government's opinion, "this request is not applicable and causes the complaint to be inappropriate" since Article 51 of the Convention is not applicable if the case is submitted to the Court. 41. The Commission affirms that it did not incorrectly apply the provisions of Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention since, while it does mention such precepts in the complaint, it never prepared the second report, which is prepared only when the case is not submitted to the Court. 42. According to the pertinent section of the Nº 5 Minutes of the Commission of October 7, 1993, "the Inter-American Commission decided to confirm Report Nº 2/93 relative to the Jean Paul Genie-Lacayo Case and submit it to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (underlining by the Court). The Court finds, therefore, that the report to which Article 51 of the Convention refers does not exist. 43. The complaint does, nonetheless, contain a request to the Court "[t]hat, on the basis of the principle of pacta sunt servanda it declare that the Government of Nicaragua has violated article 51(2) of the American Convention by failing to comply with the Commission's recommendations." The Court finds it inappropriate to state its position at this time, since whether or not governments violate either the pacta sunt servanda principle or the Convention by failing to comply with the "recommendations" of the Commission is not a preliminary issue. The Court shall