10 have to resolve this request on the merits. To establish whether or not this request is founded is not appropriate at this stage. 44. The fourth point alleged by the Government in this preliminary objection is that there is an inconsistency between the conclusion foreseen in section 6(1) of Report 2/93 of March 10, 1993, which refers to the violation of Jean Paul Genie-Lacayo's right to life as provided for in Article 4 of the Convention and the actual complaint which fails to request that the Court state its position on the alleged violation of Article 4 of the Convention. 45. In its reply, the Commission states that "the complaint of the Commission refers strictly to the violation of rights relative to judicial guarantees and protection as provided for in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention and Article 2 of the same, all related to Article 1(1)" and that "consequently, there exists . . . no 'inconsistency'." 46. The Court observes that in Conclusion 6(1) of Report Nº 2/93 of March 10, 1993, it is indeed stated that the Government is responsible for violating Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention, together with Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection). In the application, reference is made only to the latter three Articles, and Article 4 is omitted. Report Nº 2/93 of the Commission is the report to which Article 50 of the Convention refers. Such Reports fall under the attributes of the Commission in its function "to promote the observance and protection of human rights" pursuant to Article 41 of the Convention (cfr. Certain Attributes of the Commission on Human Rights, supra 40, para. 23) which obviously includes all recognized rights and must be protected, even if the States have not accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. The purpose of the Report is to urge the State involved to adopt the recommendations that it suggests. When the Commission made the decision to submit the case to the Court, it did so precisely because, in its opinion, such recommendations had not been adopted. The Commission omitted the violation of Article 4 because it was aware that the events related to this precept, by virtue of the date on which they occurred, lied beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. In the opinion of the Court, this can neither be regarded as an inconsistency nor be accepted as a preliminary objection. 47. The Government bases its fourth objection on the allegation that the Commission's request to declare the legal effect of Decrees 591 and 600 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, constitutes a request for an advisory opinion pursuant to Article 64(2). It adds that this request could only be made by the Government and fails to comply with the requirements established by the Rules of Procedure and cannot be joined to a contentious case. 48. The Commission has alleged that it is competent and has the obligation to ensure respect for the Convention; that Nicaragua is obliged to adjust its legislation to the Convention and that Article 64(2) of the Convention is not the only means to examine the compatibility of the legislation with the Convention. 49. On a prior occasion this Court has stated that "[a] State may violate . . . the Convention, in many ways . . . Likewise, it may adopt provisions which do not conform to its obligations under the Convention," and that, in respect of its function to promote the observance and protection of human rights, the Commission has the "power to rule, as in the case of any other act, that a norm or internal law violates the Convention . . ." (Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission, supra 40, paras. 26 and 37.) However, in the instant case, the abstract compatibility, such as the Commission has formulated it in the "Purpose of the Application," between the decrees mentioned and the Convention, is something that pertains to the Court's advisory (Art. 64(2)), and not its contentious (Art. 62(3)) jurisdiction.