105 Article 50 of the Convention concerns the preparation of a report by the Commission that is transmitted to the State, which may not publish it; it contains a series of recommendations to be complied with to settle the matter. If, within the three months following the transmittal of the report to the State, the matter has not been settled and the Commission considers that the State did not comply, it has two options: to refer the case to the Court, by filing an application or to draw up the report referred to in Article 51 of the Convention, which, by the vote of an absolute majority of its members, shall set forth its opinion and conclusions concerning the question submitted for its consideration. As in the Article 50 report, in the Article 51 report, the Commission shall prescribe a period within which the State must take the necessary measures to comply with the recommendations and, thus, remedy the situation that is being examined. Lastly, once this period has expired, the Commission shall determine whether the State has complied and, if appropriate, decide whether to publish the report (cfr: Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention). The Court has already stated that this decision is not discretional, but rather "should be based on the alternative most favourable for the protection of the human rights" established in the Convention. (Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Articles 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, para. 54). Once a case has been referred to the Court, the provisions of Article 51 of the Convention are not applicable, because the filing of an application is subject to the 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.70 190. The instant case having been submitted to the consideration of the Court, the preparation of the second report does not apply, since the Commission chose the jurisdictional path in order for the Court to solve the differences of appreciation that still remained between the Commission and the State. 191. The Court has pointed out that […] the term "recommendations" used by the American Convention should be interpreted to conform to its ordinary meaning, in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For that reason, a recommendation does not have the character of an obligatory judicial decision for which the failure to comply would generate State responsibility.71 192. However, as this Tribunal has likewise established, […] in accordance with the principle of good faith, embodied in the aforesaid Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention, if a State signs and ratifies an international treaty, especially one concerning human rights, such as the American Convention, it has the obligation to make every effort to apply with the recommendations of a protection organ such as the Inter-American Commission, which is, indeed, one of the principal organs of the Organization of American States, whose function is “to promote the observance and defense of human rights” in the hemisphere (OAS Charter, Articles 52 and 111). Likewise, Article 33 of the American Convention states that the Inter-American Commission is, as the Court, competent "with respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the State Parties" which means that by ratifying 70 Baena Ricardo et al. Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C N° 61, para. 37 and 38. 71 cfr. Loayza-Tamayo Case. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C N° 33, para. 79; and Genie-Lacayo Case, supra note 58, para. 93.