14. The Commission noted that, following the lodging of the initial petition, the criminal proceedings, their result and, consequently, the law that supported the latter, formed part of the facts of which the State had been made aware, and the State had presented its observations in that regard. It underscored that, based on the iura novit curia principle, it was empowered to assess the legality of the facts submitted to its consideration and declare that articles that had not been cited by the parties were applicable. 15. The representatives argued that the right of defense could be violated owing to inconsistency between the Admissibility Report and the Merits Report when the factual framework on which the case was based had been modified. However, in the instant case, the right of defense had not been violated because, after analyzing the merits of the matter in its Merits Report �� based on the facts contained in its Admissibility Report – the Commission had declared the violation of another article of the Convention. Second, they indicated that the iura novit curia principle empowered the Inter-American Court (and the Commission) to identify – even ex officio – human rights violations arising from the factual framework of a case, regardless of the procedural moment at which the violation of the said articles was alleged, and even whether it had been alleged. 16. This Court has indicated that the Inter-American Commission has autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate as established by the American Convention and, particularly, in the exercise of its functions in the procedure for processing individual petitions established in Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention. However, in matters that it is examining, the Court has the power to conduct a review of the legality of the Commission’s actions. 8 This does not necessarily signify that it reviews the procedure carried out before the Commission, unless one of the parties alleges credibly that a serious error occurred that violated its right of defense. 9 However, the Court must maintain an appropriate balance between the protection of human rights, the ultimate purpose of the system, and the legal certainty and procedural equality that ensure the stability and reliability of the international protection. 10 17. The Court also recalls that the party arguing that an action of the Commission during the procedure before it has involved a serious error that affected its right of defense must provide proof of this prejudice. Therefore, a complaint or difference of opinion in relation to the Inter-American Commission’s actions is not sufficient in this regard. 11 Cf. Control of due process in the exercise of the powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Articles 41 and 44 to 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-19/05 of November 28, 2005. Series A No.19, first and third operative paragraphs; 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 the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448, para. 18. 8 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 66, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 43. 9 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra, para. 32, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, supra, para. 18. 10 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra, para. 32, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, para. 18. 11 6