18 57. Furthermore, the nature of the recommendations issued by the said Committee is different from the judgments delivered by the Inter-American Court. The former is an action specific to an organ of the ILO with the legal effect of a recommendation to the States. The latter is a judgment that, in the terms of the Convention, is final and not subject to appeal (Article 67) and must be complied with (Article 68.1). 58. In view of these considerations, there is no duplication of proceedings in this case. 59. Therefore, the Court rejects the second preliminary objection. VIII THIRD OBJECTION: Violation of Confidentiality 60. The third objection filed by the State refers to the Commission’s violation of the rule of confidentiality by transmitting a copy of the report referred to in Article 50 of the Convention to the petitioners. 61. The Court summarizes the State’s arguments justifying this objection, as follows: a) that on October 16, 1997, the Commission adopted Report No. 37/97 and transmitted it to Panama on October 17, 1997, with an eminently confidential character. b) that the confidentiality of the report is established in Article 50.2 of the Convention, and also in the Court’s Rules of Procedure; c) that, despite the rule of confidentiality, the Commission forwarded a copy of the application against Panama submitted to the Court to the members of SITIRHE; d) that, according to Article 50.2 of the Convention, the Commission’s violation of the principle of confidentiality is contrary to Articles 62.3 and 63.1 of the Convention and to general international law. Moreover, it states that if the Court does not reject the application, “there will be a double sanction against Panama, which is prohibited not only in the context of the interAmerican system, but also by general international law”; and e) that the violation of the principle of confidentiality has resulted in the “absolute nullity” of the proceedings of the Commission before the Court. 62. The Court summarizes the arguments of the Commission with regard to this objection, as follows: