13 65. The Commission adopted two Resolutions (16/84 and 23/86) approximately one and a half years apart, neither of which was formally called a "report" for purposes of Article 50. This raises two problems. The first concerns the prerequisites for reports prepared pursuant to Article 50 and the question whether the resolutions adopted by the Commission fulfill those requirements. The other problem concerns the existence of two resolutions, the second of which both confirms the earlier one and contains the decision to submit the case to the Court. 66. In addressing the first issue, it should be noted that the Convention sets out, in very general terms, the requirements that must be met by reports prepared pursuant to Article 50. Under this article, such reports must set forth the facts and conclusions of the Commission, to which may be added such proposals and recommendations as the Commission sees fit. In that sense, Resolution 16/84 meets the requirements of Article 50. 67. The Commission did not call Resolution 16/84 a "report," however, and the terms employed by the Commission do not conform to the wording of the Convention. That is, nonetheless, irrelevant if the content of the resolution approved by the Commission is substantially in keeping with the terms of Article 50, as in the instant case, and so long as it does not affect the procedural rights of the parties (particularly those of the State) to have one last opportunity to resolve the matter before it can be filed with the Court. Whether this last condition was complied with in the instant case is related to the other problem: the Commission's adoption of two Resolutions -- Nos. 16/84 and 23/86. 68. The Commission adopted Resolution 16/84 at its 63rd Session (October 1984) and transmitted it to the Government by note of October 15, 1984. On October 29 of the same year, that is, fewer than three months after the adoption of Resolution 16/84 and, thus, within the deadline for filing the application with the Court, the Government asked the Commission to reconsider the Resolution because, among other things, it had ordered a general investigation entrusted to an ad hoc commission which would receive "all the documentation on this deplorable matter . . . so that it might reopen the investigation and verify the truth of the allegations." The Commission did not take an immediate decision on the request, which was eventually denied on April 18, 1986 by Resolution 23/86, after the Commission received a note dated April 7, 1986 containing information from the Government. According to that note, no new evidence had been discovered that could confirm the facts with certainty and identify the persons allegedly responsible. 69. The Convention does not foresee a situation where the State might request the reconsideration of a report approved pursuant to Article 50. Article 54 of the Commission's Regulations does contemplate the possibility of a request for reconsideration of a resolution. However, that provision only applies to petitions involving States that are not parties to the Convention, which is not the instant case. Quite apart from strictly formal considerations, the procedure followed by States Parties to the Convention in requesting reconsideration has repercussions on procedural deadlines and can, as in the instant case, have negative effects on the petitioner's right to obtain the international protection offered by the Convention within the legally established time frames. Nevertheless, within certain timely and reasonable limits, a request for reconsideration that is based on the will to resolve a case through the domestic channels available to the State may be said to meet the general aim of the procedures followed by the Commission since it would achieve a satisfactory solution of the alleged violation through the State's cooperation. 70. The extension of the time limit for submission of an application to the Court does not impair the procedural position of the State when the State itself request an extension. In the instant case, the Commission's delay in reaching a decision on the request for reconsideration resulted in a substantial (approximately a year and half) extension of the period available to the Government for a last opportunity to resolve the matter without being brought before the Court.