(3) the Human Rights Clinic of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre and Scholars at Risk at the University of Ottawa.11 18. Final written arguments and observations. On March 2, 2020, the State and the representatives forwarded their final written arguments and the Commission its final written observations. 19. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated this judgment, in a virtual session, on August 25, 26 and 27, 2020.12 III JURISDICTION 20. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 21. The State filed six preliminary objections. Two of them related to the admissibility of the whole case, while the other objections related to the inclusion of new facts by the representatives. The Court will decide whether it is appropriate to analyze certain facts of the factual framework in the chapter on Preliminary Considerations (infra Chapter V). In this section, the Court will examine: (1) the request concerning control of legality in relation to the submission of the case to the Court, and (2) the “fourth instance” principle and the complementarity of the inter-American system. A. Request to review the legality of the submission of the case to the InterAmerican Court A.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 22. The State indicated that the submission of a case to the Court should indicate “the facts, grounds and legal provisions” on which the Commission based itself to take that decision. It argued that, in this case, “the reasons indicated by the Commission to submit the case to the Court [were] not sufficiently substantiated according to the standards that the Court itself had established to evaluate the reasonableness of the acts of organs of the State.” In particular, it argued that the analysis made by the Commission did not indicate why the measures taken by the State had not constituted significant progress in compliance with its recommendations. The State argued that “the Commission’s omissive conduct create[d] a situation of inequality because the Court [was] unable to make the necessary assessment of the steps taken by the State prior to deciding to examine the case submitted to its consideration by the Commission.” It also underlined that, without any reason, the Commission had rejected a request for an extension during compliance with the recommendations, the purpose of which was to provide and the presumed victim’s personal dignity, and the dignity of his function. It also refers to the alleged violations in this case. The brief was signed by Catalina Arango Patiño, Robert Quinn, Jesse Levine and Salvador Herencia Carrasco. The brief relates to international human rights law standards for the right to academic freedom and its application to this case. 11 Owing to the exceptional circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated and adopted during the 136th regular session, held virtually, as established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure. See Press Release No. 39/2020, of May 25, 2020, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/ cp_39_2020.pdf 12 6