61 c) argued that the differing juridical classification of the violations discussed and proven during the proceedings before the Commission does not violate the principle of equality of arms or the State’s right of defense. Considerations of the Court 117. Before turning its attention to the State’s second preliminary objection, the Court believes that some clarification is needed with regard to the possibility suggested by the Commission that the State may file preliminary objections to the arguments made by the representatives in the instant case in their brief of pleadings and motions. 118. To that end, some mention must be made of the various amendments to the article governing the participation of the alleged victims and their duly accredited legal representatives. 119. Article 35(4) of the Rules of Procedure in effect at the time the application in the instant case was filed, provided that the representatives had the authority to present autonomously to the Court their requests, arguments and evidence. 120. The previous version of Article 36 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure -now Article 37- provides that: 1. Preliminary objections may only be filed in the brief answering the application. 2. The document setting out the preliminary objections shall set out the facts on which the objection is based, the legal arguments, and the conclusions and supporting documents, as well as any evidence which the party filing the objection may wish to produce. […] 121. Thus, the text of the article in question makes no mention of the possibility of filing preliminary objections to the brief of pleadings and motions, either before the Rules of Procedure were amended or thereafter. However, the principle of legal certainty and justice demand that the parties be able to avail themselves of their right of defense. Consequently, based on the adversarial action principle and absent any impediment, the State may, in its answer to the application, enter objections, present observations and, where appropriate, file preliminary objections not just to the application but to the brief of pleadings and motions as well. 122. Furthermore, the Court’s usage constant has been that the respondent State presents its comments on the representatives’ brief of pleadings and motions in its brief answering the application, a practice legislated in Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure as amended on November 25, 2003, which took effect on January 1, 2004. It reads as follows: 1. The respondent shall answer the application in writing within a period of 4 months of the notification, which may not be extended. The requirements indicated in Article 33 of these Rules shall apply. The Secretary shall communicate the said answer to the persons referred to in Article 35(1) above. Within this same period, the respondent shall present its comments on the written brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence. These observations may be included within the answer to the application or within a separate brief.