4 the Government may not publish this report, in keeping with Article 47(6) of the Commission’s Regulations. 7. To submit this case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the event that the Government of Suriname should fail to implement all of the recommendations contained in numeral 5 above. 15. On August 27, 1990, the Commission referred the instant case to the Court. III 16. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. Suriname has been a State Party to the Convention since November 12, 1987, when it also recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention. IV 17. In its communication of June 28, 1991, the Government refers to some questions of form without, however, characterizing them as preliminary objections. At the hearing, the Agent expressly stated that they did not qualify as such. Nevertheless, since these “questions of form” could in one way or another affect the admissibility of the instant case and since the communication expressly requests that the Court deal with them, it will address these questions below. The issues raised concern the lack of a signature on the memorial submitted to the Court, the representation of the Commission in this contentious case, and the presence of the victim’s representative on the Commission’s delegation. 18. The Court has stated earlier that failure to observe certain formalities is not necessarily relevant when dealing on the international plane. What is essential is that the conditions necessary for the preservation of the procedural rights of the parties not be diminished or unbalanced and that the objectives of the different procedures be met. (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 33; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 38; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 36.) 19. The Government argued, first, that “Memorials initiating international proceedings in the area of human rights [. . .] must comply with the formal requirement of being duly signed by the party filing the application.” This requirement was not met by the Commission. 20. The Commission maintained that the fact that the memorial had been sent by fax, under a cover sheet indicating that to be the form of transmittal, did not leave the Court or any third parties in doubt as to the authenticity of the document in question. 21. Article 25(2) of the Rules provides that: “If the Commission intends to bring a case before the Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 61 of the Convention, it shall file with the Secretary, together with its report, in twenty copies, its duly signed application which shall indicate the object of the application, the human rights involved, and the names of its delegates.”