13 new study of the matter, it adopted Resolution 24/86 on April 18, 1986, which confirmed Resolution 32/83 and contained its decision to submit the case to the Court. 72. The Convention does not foresee a situation where the State might request the reconsideration of a report approved pursuant to Article 50. Article 54 of the Commission's Regulations does contemplate the possibility of a request for reconsideration of a resolution. However, that provision only applies to petitions involving States that are not parties to the Convention, which is not the instant case. Quite apart from strictly formal considerations, the procedure followed by States Parties to the Convention in requesting reconsideration has repercussions on procedural deadlines and can, as in the instant case, have negative effects on the petitioner's right to obtain the international protection offered by the Convention within the legally established time frames. Nevertheless, within certain timely and reasonable limits, a request for reconsideration that is based on the will to resolve a case through the domestic channels available to the State may be said to meet the general aim of the procedures followed by the Commission, since it would achieve a satisfactory solution of the alleged violation through the State's cooperation. 73. The extension of the time limit for submission of an application to the Court does not impair the procedural position of the State when the State itself request an extension. In the instant case, the Commission's decision to "continue the study of the case" resulted in a substantial (approximately two and a half years) extension of the period available to the Government for a last opportunity to resolve the matter without being brought before the Court. Thus, neither the State's procedural rights nor its opportunity to provide a remedy were in any way diminished. 74. The Commission never revoked Resolution 32/83, rather, it suspended the procedural effects in expectation of new evidence that might lead to a different settlement. By confirming the previous resolution, the Commission reopened the periods for the succeeding procedural stages. 75. The Government argues that the ratification of Resolution 32/83 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. 76. As shown by the text of its submissions of October 31, 1986, the Government's investigation conducted between 1983 and 1986 concluded that it was impossible "to reach an unequivocal determination regarding disappearances resulting from actions attributed to governmental authorities, or to identify those 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. 77. 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. 78. 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