Court to provide the reasons for its rulings, this international instrument does not establish the same requirement for the Commission’s reports. 51 Moreover, this requirement was not established in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in force when it issued its Merits Report in this case. 52 However, the Court recalls that a State that has been accused of violating the Convention may, in exercise of its right of defense, argue before the Commission any of the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 and, if the Commission admits that argument, the State may request that the processing of the petition cease and that it be filed. 53 If the Commission provided the reasoning on which its reports are based, this would allow the State to know that the Commission had considered its defense arguments when taking the respective decision. 40. Although reasoning a decision does not require a detailed response to each and every argument of the parties, 54 the preliminary objection filed by the State was an important part of its defense, even though it was not directly related to an admissibility requirement. Nevertheless, the Court considers that the absence of a specific response to the State’s argument on this point is not, in itself, sufficient for it to be considered a serious error that harmed the State’s right of defense and that could result in the inadmissibility of this case before the Court. 41. Nonetheless, this Court emphasizes that the Commission must guarantee, at all times, the reasonableness of the time frames during the processing of its proceedings. However, within certain temporal and reasonable limits, certain omissions or delays in the observance of the Commission’s own procedures may be excused if an adequate balance is maintained between justice and legal certainty. 55 The foregoing consideration allow the conclusion to be reached that the State has not proved that the length of time that the petition spent at the stage of the initial review resulted in non-compliance with the procedural norms of the interAmerican system or a serious error that affected its right of defense, in a way that justified the inadmissibility of this case. 42. In addition, the Court considers that the Commission’s delay in processing cases before that organ does not constitute per se sufficient reason to sacrifice the right of the presumed victims to have access to the Inter-American Court. If the argument that the excessive duration of the initial review (in this case, more than three years) could constitute an obstacle for the submission of the case to the Court were accepted, this would affect the admissibility and inadmissibility shall be public and the Commission shall include them in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. 2. When an admissibility report is adopted, the petition shall be registered as a case and the proceedings on the merits shall be initiated. The adoption of an admissibility report does not constitute a prejudgment as to the merits of the matter. […]”. 51 Regarding the report under Article 50, the Convention establishes that “the Commission shall […] draw up a report setting forth the facts and stating its conclusions”; while Article 66(1) of the Convention establishes that: “[r]easons shall be given for the judgment of the Court.” 52 Article 43 of the Commission’s 2009 Rules of Procedure established that: “[t]he Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge,” while Article 44 established that: “[i]f [the Commission] establishes one or more violations, it shall prepare a preliminary report with the proposals and recommendations it deems pertinent and shall transmit it to the State in question.” 53 Cf. Certain attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 The American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 41. 54 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious-Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 90, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 146. 55 Cf. Case of Cayara v. Peru, supra, para. 42, and Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 45. 18