18. In the instant case, the Court, as a jurisdictional organ, will proceed to review the actions and decisions taken by the Commission in order to ensure the validity of the admissibility requirements and that the principles of adversarial proceedings, procedural equality and legal certainty were respected. 12 19. Regarding the inclusion of human rights violations in the Commission’s Merits Report that had not been indicated previously in its Admissibility Report, the Court notes that the rights indicated in the Admissibility Report are the result of a preliminary examination of the petition. Therefore, this does not limit the possibility of other rights or articles that were allegedly violated being included at later stages, provided that the State’s right of defense is respected within the factual framework of the case being analyzed, as occurred in this case. In addition, the Court notes that the State did not submit any arguments concerning the possible prejudice caused and, in particular, any harm that had occurred to its right of defense. 20. Based on the above, and considering that the Commission’s inclusion in the Merits Report of the alleged violation of Articles 2 and 9 of the American Convention falls within the factual framework of this case and, in particular, is related to the laws applicable at the time of the facts that are the subject of the dispute before this Court, the preliminary objection must be rejected. B. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies 21. The State indicated that the alleged victims and their representatives had failed to comply with the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the facts associated with the violation of Articles 2 and 9 of the Convention. In particular, it indicated that they should have filed an action of unconstitutionality, which was an “available and effective” remedy. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, it added that the alleged victims had not had recourse to the available legal remedy to submit specific arguments concerning the determination of the sum imposed as civil compensation. 22. The Commission underlined that, although the State was aware of the facts relating to the criminal proceedings, it had failed to cite the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the action of unconstitutionality or to present any evidence that this would have been appropriate and effective during the procedure before the Commission. To the contrary, at both the admissibility and the merits stage, the State had indicated that the actions taken during the criminal proceedings were in keeping with the American Convention. Consequently, the objection concerning the failure to exhaust the action of unconstitutionality that the State was seeking to introduce at the current stage of the proceedings was time-barred pursuant to the consistent case law of the Court. 23. The representatives argued that the State had not filed a preliminary objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies before the Commission during the first procedural stages of the litigation. They also indicated that even the Admissibility Report 12 Cf. Case of Grande v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 231, para. 46, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 28. 7