Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dr. Jorge E. Orihuela-Iberico on the Preliminary Objection of Expiration of the Time Limit for Submission of the Commission’s Application In the Case of Neira Alegría et al. I. II. III. IV. Facts Normative Provisions Case Law Conclusions and Vote I. Facts 1. The Commission approved Report 43/90 during its 77th Session, at its Meeting N° 1057 of May 14, 1990. 2. By note of June 11, 1990, the Commission transmitted the report to the Government of Peru, indicating that the time-limits set out in the report would begin to run on the date of that communication. 3. By note of August 14, 1990, the Government of Peru requested the Commission to extend that period for 30 days in order to enable it to fully comply with the Commission’s recommendations and in view of the fact that it had ordered the immediate preparation of a report on all actions taken in this case. The Government based its request on Article 34(6) of the Regulations of the Commission. 4. On August 20, 1990, the Commission advised the Government that it had granted the extension request for a period of 30 additional days, beginning on September 11, 1990. In making this decision, the Commission: [. . .] took special note of the following: a) The grant of an extension of 30 days would in no way impair the international protection of human rights; rather, it might open the possibility of a ‘settlement in this case,’ as contemplated in Article 51(1) of the Convention; b) The extension was for a reasonable length of time and had been requested within the time-limit specified in the Convention and in Report 43/90; c) The request was reasonable and was based on weighty circumstances that warranted consideration, such as the short time that the new Administration had been in power and the promise of an immediate report on all actions taken in this case.