by the Commission diligently forwarding the petition to the State, because until this transfer has been effected, the State is unaware that certain acts or omissions which occurred within the said State have been questioned before an international organ.” Regarding point (b), namely the right of defense, the State emphasized that the diligent and timely forwarding of the petition “permits not only the design of a defensive strategy in an adequate temporal context, but even the possibility of adopting early measures to find a friendly settlement to the matter.” Regarding point (c), the State indicated that “the Commission’s prolonged and undisputable silence […] gave the State the legitimate expectation that, after a certain time had passed, those acts that could be attributed to its organs that had not been contested in the international sphere, [would] no longer be subject to review by this instance, and their legal consequences would be consolidated.” 22. The State also indicated that, “at the first available procedural opportunity, [it had] filed a preliminary objection for a special ruling” on this point. Nevertheless, the State underscored that “the Commission did not even consider [this preliminary objection] in either its Admissibility Report or its Merits Report.” In general, the State indicated that the Commission had not explained why it had taken four years just to carry out the formal examination of the complaint during the initial review of the petition. In this regard, it also stressed that an alleged lack of sufficient resources cannot be argued as an excuse for failing to comply with a reasonable time. 23. The representatives indicated that they had lodged their petition before the Commission “before the first 30 days of the time frame [of six months established in Article 46 of the Convention] had elapsed.” They underlined that the said article “refers to the petitioner” and “in no way refers to the time frame accorded to the [Commission] to forward the complaint to the State.” In their final written arguments, they argued that the State “is seeking to convert [them] into victims of [the Commission,] renouncing its direct responsibilities as a State [in] this case.” They also emphasized that the State “alleges that it has suffered supposed harm owing to the [Commission’s] delay, but does so in the abstract.” They indicated that the Court “should weigh the hypothetical prejudice” suffered by Argentina against “the real prejudice suffered by two individuals at the hands of the State.” 24. The Commission underlined that the State “has not explained the specific harm caused to its right of defense.” In addition, it observed that “[t]he analogous application of Article 46(1)( b) of the American Convention to the ‘opening of proceedings’ has no basis in the said instrument [… because t[his time frame bears no relationship to the time frames for the processing of the said petitions by the Inter-American Commission.” The Commission explained that “at the stage of the initial review […] different scenarios may arise that can delay the preliminary examination of a complaint.” It argued that this “situation is perfectly compatible with the principle of accessibility that governs the system of individual petitions, which is established in Article 44 of the American Convention, and which does not require legal assistance to file a petition.” It added that “the realities inherent in the Commission’s work and the procedural delays that it faces contribute to these delays.” In this regard, it indicated that “the Commission is currently making an immense effort – an enormous effort – to overcome these procedural delays, to obtain resources, […] and to ensure that time frames are reduced.” In addition, the Commission clarified that “it had not ruled on this argument in its Admissibility Report, precisely because it was not related to any of the admissibility requirements […] or to any of the elements that define the Commission’s competence.” A.2) Considerations of the Court 25. This Court has maintained that the Inter-American Commission has autonomy and independence to exercise its mandate as established by the American Convention and, 11