40. In this regard, the Court recalls that remedies intended exclusively for providing reparations do not necessarily have to be exhausted by the alleged victims and therefore do not inhibit the Court’s competence to hear a case. 31 Essentially, the Court finds that, in cases like this one, in which serious human rights violations are alleged, the admissibility requirements for the petition should involve domestic remedies addressing the criminal investigation and possible punishment of those responsible, 32 regarding which specific pleadings were made as to their lack of effectiveness and excessive delay, which will be the subject of analysis in the merits. 41. Based on the above considerations, the Court rejects the preliminary objection. D. Preliminary objection for violation of the right to defense and international due process to the detriment of the Argentine State D.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 42. The State pointed out that it had made “very specific arguments justifying that available domestic remedies for reparations had not been exhausted,” but that the Commission “completely ignored any consideration of such arguments.” It added that Articles 46(1) of the American Convention and 31 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure establish “a compelling legal imperative" for verifying that domestic remedies have been properly exhausted, and therefore, the Commission's lack of response “amounts to a violation of international due process to the detriment of the State.” It asked that the preliminary objection be admitted and, consequently, that the Court "refrain from considering any injury related to the alleged 'lack of comprehensive redress.'" 43. The representative argued that at no time prior to the Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 56/19 did the State “raise a specific, timely, clear, and duly grounded challenge” to the admissibility of the petition. 44. The Commission indicated that in view of its autonomy and independence, the Court’s authority to review the legality of its actions is admissible only “in exceptional cases in which there is a serious error that violates the parties’ right to defense.” It indicated that in its Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 56/19, it analyzed what was pertinent based on the arguments of the parties. It added that the State did not demonstrate the existence of a serious error violating its right to defense, since its arguments refer to a disagreement with the criteria set forth in analysis of the admissibility of the petition. It asked that the preliminary objection be dismissed. D.2. Considerations of the Court 45. The State's arguments constitute a request to review the legality of the Commission's actions. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in matters that are before it, it has the power to review the legality of the Commission's actions, but this does not necessarily mean conducting ex officio review of proceedings carried out before that body. Such review may proceed, then, in cases where one of the parties alleges a serious error that violates its right of defense, in which case such harm must be effectively demonstrated. A complaint or discrepancy of criteria in relation to the actions of the Inter-American Commission is not Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, par. 38, and Case of Vasquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 332, par. 38. 32 Cf. Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, par. 46. 31 13