19 a) that the State is again confusing the report under Article 50 of the Convention with the application before the Court; b) that it never transmitted a copy of Report No. 37/97 corresponding to Article 50 of the Convention to the petitioners, but it did forward them a copy of the application filed before the Court, requesting their comments on it in accordance with the aim and purpose of the Convention and its regulatory provisions; c) that in no part of the Convention, the Rules of Procedure of the Court or the Regulations of the Commission is it stated that the application should be confidential or that it may not be transmitted to the petitioners for their information, and there is no rule on the confidentiality of proceedings before the Commission or the Court and, it is only expressly stated that the report under Article 50 of the Convention shall be transmitted to the State, who shall not be at liberty to publish it; d) that Article 35 of the Rules of Procedures of the Court and Article 75 of the Regulations of the Commission establish that the petitioners shall be notified of the application. e) that the State erroneously interpreted the application of Articles 62 and 63 of the Convention, because they do not refer to the right of defense but to the rights of the individual. Likewise, it declared that the State has not demonstrated how notification of the application to the petitioners (not that of Report No. 37/97, which it mentions incorrectly) affected its procedural rights, which is the essential presumption for a preliminary objection to be admissible; and f) that the application must be notified to the petitioners for several reasons, among these, to ensure the petitioner’s individual guarantee of defense. *** 63. The court proceeds to consider the third preliminary objection. 64. The Court observes that it is clear from the evidence which the State contributed to establish its allegation that what the Commission transmitted to the petitioners was not Report No. 37/97, but the application, once it had decided to submit this to the Court (cf. note of the Trade Union of Workers of the Institute of Hydraulic Resources and Electrification of Panama of February 23, 1998; note of the Trade Union of Workers of the Institute of Hydraulic Resources and Electrification of Panama of February 17, 1998). The Commission took this measure to comply with the provisions of Article 75 of its Regulations, according to which [w]hen the Commission decides to refer a case to the Court, the Executive Secretary shall immediately notify the petitioner and alleged victim of the Commission’s decision and offer him the opportunity of making observations in writing on the request submitted to the Court. The Commission shall decide on the action to be taken with respect to these observations. 65. Furthermore, the Court notes that this procedure is in accordance with the provisions of Article 35.1.e of its Rules of Procedure, under which the Secretariat of