presumably involved criminal offenses that could be prosecuted ex officio in Brazil – arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial execution – the appropriate and effective remedy was a criminal investigation and a trial before the ordinary system of justice. The Commission also noted that the Amnesty Law was “an obstacle to the criminal prosecution of those responsible” for the violations perpetrated against the presumed victim and, therefore, determined that the petition was admissible because Brazil’s domestic laws did not establish the appropriate legal proceedings to protect the rights allegedly violated. The Commission also argued that numerous actions had been taken at the domestic level in 2008 and 2009, so that lodging the petition in 2009 was reasonable. 62. Based on the above, the Commission asked the Court to deny the State’s request to conduct a control of legality on this point, because the State had not proved the existence of the presumptions for this control to take place. It also asked the Court to establish that its analysis, in the Admissibility Report, of the requirement of opportune submission of the petition complied with the conventional and regulatory framework and, consequently, to declare this preliminary objection inadmissible. 63. The representatives underlined that the Court’s consistent case law had determined the inadmissibility of the objection relating to the six-months’ time limit if the State argued the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, owing to the intrinsic contradiction between these arguments. They also stressed that the Inter-American Commission had autonomy and independence to examine the individual petitions submitted to its consideration in the exercise of its mandate under the Convention. 64. In addition, they argued that, according to the Court’s rulings, a review of the procedure before the Commission would only have been admissible if one of the parties had proved that there had been a grave error or failure to observe the admissibility requirements in a way that violated the interested party’s right of defense. The representatives emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the party alleging this as they must prove a real prejudice to their right of defense; thus, a mere complaint or difference of opinion with regard to the Commission’s actions was insufficient. 65. The representatives underscored that the reasonableness of the time is a decision of the Commission and, to this end, it took into account the date of the facts and the specific circumstances of the case. They emphasized the incompatibility of the Amnesty Law with the American Convention, in addition to the impunity that reigned under this Law in relation to the human rights violations that occurred during the military regime: reasons that had led the Commission to conclude that the petition had been lodged within a reasonable time. D.2. Considerations of the Court 66. The State asked the Court to conduct a control of the legality of the proceedings before the Commission. However, in the Court’s opinion, in this case the request corresponded to a preliminary objection that questioned the admissibility of the petition owing to the presumed failure to comply with the requirement established in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention. 32 The Court will therefore examine the arguments of the parties in light of these circumstances. Article 46.- “1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a. that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law; b. that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment; […] 32 15