14 thereto.11 The State requested that such extension be granted until July 8, 2005. On June 27, 2005 the Inter-American Commission informed the State that an extension of said term was granted up to July 1, 2005. The State submitted its report on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations of the Commission on July 11, 2005. 60. As it can be seen from the foregoing paragraph, two different terms were simultaneously going by, namely: the term set for the State to submit its report on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, which expired on July 1, 2005 (Article 43(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission), and the term for the Court to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Court, which expired on July 11, 2005 (Article 51(1) of the Convention). Consequently, the State made a mistake when considering that the term set in Article 51(1) of the Convention was applicable thereto, when, as a matter of fact, it was subject to the term set by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Article 43(2) of its Rules of Procedure. 61. Due to the foregoing, the Court finds that the State submitted its report beyond the deadline set to that purpose, and that the Commission proceeded pursuant to its Rules of Procedure and those of the American Convention. The fact that the full version of Report No. 30/05 was forwarded to the State on May 12, 2005 does not affect the foregoing conclusion, since the Commission, taking into consideration that such report had not been forwarded in due time, granted the State an additional extension from June 11 to July 1, 2005. Furthermore, the Court considers that the fact that the Commission inquired the State about its interest in starting a process of amicable solution on October 17, 2005, when the case was already being heard by the Court, though not understandable, does not affect the decision of the Court to consider that the State submitted its report on compliance beyond the deadline set to that purpose. 62. As to the second argument filed by the State regarding the fact that the Commission had allegedly taken the decision to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Court prior to the submission of the report on compliance by the State, based on the request that was allegedly made to the victims’ representative by e-mail about the facts regarding the case, the Court notes that the foregoing did not take place. In fact, from the case file placed on record at the Court it is derived that the e-mail to which the State refers is the communication filed before the Commission on June 24, 2005 by the representative of the alleged victims, wherein he forwarded the information requested by the Commission on June 20, 2005, pursuant to Article 43(3) of the Rules of Procedure thereof, which provides that: After the deliberation and vote on the merits of the case, the Commission shall proceed as follows: […] 3. 11 It shall notify the petitioner of the adoption of the report and its transmittal to the In the case file of the instant case placed on record at the Court there is no evidence of the alleged request for an extension submitted by the State on April 15, 2005 (supra para. 52 (b)).