29. As the State has explained, the Court notes that neither in the American Convention, nor the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission is there any article that imposes a time frame for the Commission to carry out the initial review of petitions. However, the Court will examine the arguments and observations of the parties and the Commission in order to determine whether the Commission’s delay at the initial review stage resulted in a violation of the State’s right of defense, in such a way as to justify the inadmissibility of the case before this Court. To this end, based on the State’s arguments, the Court will now examine: (a) whether the said delay constituted an indirect violation of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention; (b) whether the actions of the Commission before forwarding the initial petition to the State could constitute estoppel and, lastly, (c) whether the said delay in forwarding the initial petition to the State resulted in a violation of Argentina’s right of defense. A.2.1) Interpretation of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, regarding the sixmonth time frame for lodging petitions before the Commission 30. Regarding the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, this Court has indicated that it should be applied in keeping with the facts of the specific case in order to ensure the effective exercise of the right to lodge individual petitions. 25 For its part, the InterAmerican Commission has recognized that “[t]he principles on which the inter-American human rights system is based evidently include that of legal certainty, which is the reason for the rule of six months and a reasonable time when the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies are applied.” 26 Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “European Court”) has established that the purpose of a similar rule 27 in the European system is to ensure legal certainty, to guarantee that cases submitting matters relating to the European Convention on Human Rights are examined within a reasonable time, and to protect the authorities and other persons involved from finding themselves in a situation of lack of certainty for an extended period of time. 28 31. The State has suggested that the Commission delayed excessively before forwarding it the initial petition, thus undermining the object and purpose of the rule included in Article 46(1)(b). This Court has established, pursuant to the context of application of the American Convention and its object and purpose, that procedural norms should be applied based on a standard of reasonableness; otherwise, there would be an imbalance between the parties and the attainment of justice would be adversely affected. 29 As the Court has indicated, the essential factor in the international jurisdiction is to ensure the necessary conditions to guarantee that the procedural rights of the parties are not weakened or unequal, and to achieve the objectives for which the different procedures have been designed. 30 25 Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 35. 26 CIDH, Petition 943-04, Report No. 100/06, Gaybor Tapia and Colón Eloy Muñoz v. Ecuador, para. 20, Annual Report, 2006, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.127 Doc. 4 rev. 1. (2007), October 21, 2007. See also, CIDH, Case of 11,827, Report No. 96/98, Peter Blaine v. Jamaica, para. 52, Annual Report 1998, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 6 rev. (1999). 27 Article 35(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes that: “[t]he Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken” (italics added). 28 Cf. ECHR, P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, § A, 24 August 2004, and Kemevuako v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 20, 1 June 2010. 29 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 40, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, supra, para. 28. 30 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 33, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, supra, para. 28. 13