32. This Court considers that the standard of reasonableness, based on which the procedural norms should be applied (supra para. 31), means that a time frame such as the one proposed by the State would have to be established clearly in the norms that regulate the proceedings. This is particularly true considering that the presumed victims’ right of petition established in Article 44 of the Convention 31 would be at stake based on acts or omissions of the Inter-American Commission over which the presumed victims have no control. In addition, if the said time frame existed, the applicable norms would also have to establish the legal consequences of failing to comply with it. 32 33. Therefore, the Court considers that the excessive delay in the initial processing does not constitute an indirect violation of the norm established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. Nevertheless, in paragraphs 35 to 0 infra it will examine the alleged effects on the right of defense that could result from the fact that the duration of the initial processing of the petition was longer than reasonable. A.2.2) Alleged application of the estoppel principle 34. According to international practice, when a party to a litigation has adopted a specific attitude that adversely affects its own position or benefits the position of the other party, under the estoppel principle, it cannot then assume another position contrary to the first. 33 The Court notes that the estoppel alleged by the State occurred owing to an omission by the Commission during the proceedings before it. In this regard, the Court notes that this argument is not admissible, because the Commission cannot be considered a party to the proceedings before it and, consequently, its actions during the said proceedings cannot result in estoppel. A.2.3) Alleged violation of the State’s right of defense 35. For the purposes of this case, it is necessary to examine Articles 27 34 and 31 35 of the Commission’s 1980 Regulations, in force when it received the initial petition on February 12, 31 Article 44 of the Convention establishes that: “[a]ny person or group of persons, or any non-governmental entity legally recognized in one or more Member States of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.” 32 Cf. Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 33. 33 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 29, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 31. 34 Article 27 of the 1980 Rules of Procedure of the Commission established that: “1. The Secretariat of the Commission shall be responsible for the study and initial processing of petitions lodged before the Commission and that fulfill all the requirements set forth in the Statute and in these Regulations. 2. If a petition or communication does not meet the requirements called for in these Regulations, the Secretariat of the Commission may request the petitioner or his representative to complete it. 3. If the Secretariat has any doubt as to the admissibility of a petition, it shall submit it for consideration to the Commission or to the Chairman during recesses of the Commission.” 35 Article 31 of the 1980 Rules of Procedure of the Commission, which regulated the initial processing, stipulated that: “1. The Commission, acting initially through its Secretariat, shall receive and process petitions lodged with it in accordance with the standards set forth below: (a) it shall enter the petition in a register especially prepared for that purpose, and the date on which it was received shall be marked on the petition or communication itself; (b) it shall acknowledge receipt of the petition to the petitioner, indicating that it will be considered in accordance with the Regulations; (c) if it accepts, in principle, the admissibility of the petition, it shall request information from the government of the State in question and include the pertinent parts of the petitions. 2. In serious or urgent cases or when it is believed that the life, personal integrity or health of a person is in imminent danger, the Commission shall request the promptest reply from the government, using for this purpose the means 14