14 Thus, neither the State's procedural rights nor its opportunity to provide a remedy were in any way diminished. 71. The Commission never revoked Resolution 16/84. In granting the request for reconsideration, the Commission suspended its procedure in expectation of new evidence that might lead to a different settlement. By adopting Resolution 23/86, which confirmed the previous resolution, the Commission reopened the periods for the succeeding procedural stages. 72. The Government argues that the ratification of Resolution 16/84 should have reinstated the 60-day period granted therein for the Government to adopt the Commission's recommendations. Given the circumstances of this case, the Court considers that argument to be ill-founded because the Government was afforded a much longer period, to the detriment of the petitioner's interest in obtaining a satisfactory result within the established time limits. 73. According to the Government's note to the Commission of April 7, 1986, the investigation conducted between 1983 and 1986 resulted in the following conclusion: "no new evidence has been discovered. The information at hand contains no convincing evidence on which to rule on the alleged disappearances with absolute certainty." The Government also asserted that it was impossible to identify the persons allegedly responsible. Under the circumstances, it made no sense to grant new extensions, which would have resulted in even longer periods than those provided for by the Convention before the matter could be submitted to the Court. 74. Thus, the Commission's decision to submit the case to the Court in the Resolution confirming its previous Resolution is not a procedural flaw that diminished the Government's procedural rights or ability to present its defense. The objection is, therefore, rejected. 75. Once an application has been filed with the Court, the provisions of Article 51 regarding the Commission's drafting of a new report containing its opinion and recommendations cease to apply. Under the Convention, such a report is in order only after three months have elapsed since transmittal of the communication referred to in Article 50. According to Article 51 of the Convention, it is the drafting of the report that is conditional on the failure to file a case with the Court and not the filing of a case that is conditional on the report not having been prepared or published. If, therefore, the Commission were to draft or publish the report mentioned in Article 51 after having filed the application with the Court, it could be said that the Commission was misapplying the provisions of the Convention. Such action could affect the juridical value of the report but would not affect the admissibility of the application because the wording of the Convention in no way conditions such filing on failure to publish the report required under Article 51. 76. It follows that, although the requirements of Article 50 and 51 have not been fully complied with, this has in no way impaired the rights of the Government and the case should therefore not be ruled inadmissible on those grounds. 77. Likewise, the reasoning developed from paragraph 36 onwards leads to the conclusion that the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the procedures set out in Articles 48 to 50 of the Convention. XII 78. Moreover, the Government has challenged the admissibility of the petition before the Commission on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been previously exhausted. 79. When the instant case was before the Commission, the Government raised this issue in very general terms. For example, the Deputy Foreign Minister addressed the issue in Document No. 066-DGPE to the Commission, dated January 24, 1983, where he stated that