information on the reasons that prevented reaching an agreement in the negotiation between the Judiciary and the petitioner. Furthermore, the State alleged that the other “argument used by the [Commission] to submit the case to the Court [was] based on an erroneous premise: that the Court’s case law on freedom of expression and due process [was] not sufficiently developed in inter-American case law.” Therefore, the State asked to Court to review the legality of the Commission’s actions and to declare “the inadmissibility of the respective proceedings.” 23. The Commission stressed that this argument did “not constitute a preliminary objection, but rather an expression of disagreement with the decision to forward the case to the Court.” It also asserted that the submission of the case to the Court had “not affected the State’s right to due process because, under the adversarial system allowed by the proceedings before the Court, it [was] able to provide information on the actions undertaken following the events that gave rise to the violations declared in the Merits Report and argue why, in its opinion, this prevent[ed] declaring the international responsibility of the State.” 24. The representatives indicated that the Commission had complied with the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. They also indicated that “the State’s questioning of the need to examine the enhanced guarantees of legality and due process in disciplinary procedures against judges should not be considered a preliminary objection, because it [was] evident that this also related to the analysis of the merits.” A.2 Considerations of the Court 25. The arguments of the State constitute a request to review the legality of the actions of the Commission. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in matters that it is hearing, it has the authority to review the legality of the actions of the Commission, but this does not necessarily imply reviewing, ex officio, the procedure held before that organ. In addition, the Court must maintain an appropriate balance between the protection of human rights, the ultimate goal of the inter-American system, and legal certainty and procedural fairness that ensures the stability and reliability of the international protection. Accordingly, the said review may be appropriate in cases in which either of the parties alleges that a serious error exists that has violated its right of defense, in which case the party concerned must realistically prove that harm. It is not enough to express a complaint or difference of opinion with regard to the actions of the Inter-American Commission.13 26. In this case, the State has not proved that the presumed omission of the Commission when submitting the case to the Court has resulted in a serious error that has violated its right of defense. The State had the opportunity to present information after it was notified of the Merits Report, and this was assessed by the Commission. The Court observes that, when submitting this case, the Commission referred to the State’s response concerning compliance with the recommendations made in the Merits Report and indicated that “the Commission has decided to send the case to the Inter-American Court owing to the need to obtain justice and reparation for the [presumed] victim.” The President of the Court considered that, when submitting the case, the Commission had complied with the requirements of Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and, consequently, required the Secretariat to notify the submission of the case. The Court agrees with this assessment and considers that the Commission has complied with the provisions of Article 35(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. Thus, it does not observe a serious error that would affect the State’s right of defense. 27. Based on the preceding considerations, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 32, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 3, 2020. Series C No. 399, para. 25. 13 7