a position at that stage and, therefore, could not dispute them, which affected the State’s right of defense.” It specifically pointed out that the facts related to the subsequent additional claim by “2,317” of the original beneficiaries regarding “fringe benefits” and “other calculations” calculated in Expert Report 240-2015-PJ-EV of December 3, 2015 (hereinafter “the Expert Report”) were “erroneously” included in the Report on the Merits. It added that this claim is being processed and has not yet been resolved with the force of res judicata domestically The State also claimed that it was “severely limited in exercising its right of defense since it was not able to file preliminary objections and/or to substantiate arguments that would refute it.” 15. The representatives Valdivia Ayala, Guerrero Cassuso, Rossi Mérida and Valdivia Bocanegra pointed out that the State had not questioned the Admissibility Report in a “timely fashion” nor “did it do so subsequently.” They also indicated that the State carried out actions and actively participated in the proceedings before the Commission “presenting the documentation that it deemed that proved its position on the merits of the matter” and, thus, the State cannot claim that its right of defense was affected. 16. The representative Meneses Huayra indicated that the facts related to the claim of “2,317” alleged victims, to which the State referred, involve the alleged failure to comply with the decision of February 12 and that, therefore, they are part of the controversy submitted to the Commission. She added that the payments suggested in the Expert Report was not a new fact, but rather that it was the materialization of what had been decided in the aforementioned decision. Finally, she noted that it was not demonstrated that the State was prejudiced the State in any way. 17. The Commission claimed that the State had not proved the “existence of serious harm to its right of defense” that would justify that the petition be declared inadmissible and stated that the proceedings respected the adversarial principle in all its aspects. It also noted that the alleged events were supervening to the Admissibility Report and stem from the principal violation. a.2 Considerations of the Court 18. The Court recalls that, in matters under its consideration, it is authorized to exercise a control of legality over the Commission’s actions, which implies maintaining a fair balance between the protection of human rights, the ultimate goal of the inter-American system, and legal security and procedural fairness that would ensure stability and confidence in international protection. This control is appropriate in cases in which a party alleges that there has been a serious error that infringes its right of defense, in which event it must effectively demonstrate such harm. A mere complaint of discrepancy of criteria with respect to the actions of the Commission is not sufficient. 15 19. The Court observes that the events to which the State referred are related to the additional and subsequent claim, which stem from the principal events that are claimed to be violations, made by a sub-group of alleged victims on the delayed enforcement of the decision of February 12. The Court, therefore, agrees with the argument of the representative Meneses Huayra and of the Commission and holds that the claim is a supervening act to the Admissibility Report that, in principle, stems from the principal events that are alleged to be in violation of the Convention. The Court also notes that the Commission, upon being informed of the supervening event, transmitted it to the State, which had the opportunity to present the observations that it deemed pertinent. 16 Therefore, 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 Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, para. 35. 16 The Court observes that, at least as of June 22, 2016, the State was aware of these supervening events (evidence file, f. 1182). 15 7