13 designed.15 42. Lastly, the party that affirms that the Commission’s actions during the proceedings before it have included a grave error that affected the party’s right of defense must prove this prejudice.16 Consequently, in this regard, a complaint or a difference of opinion in relation to the actions of the Inter-American Commission is not sufficient. * * * 43. First, the State alleged that the Commission should not have processed the alleged victim’s request for precautionary measures, among other reasons, because: (i) it granted precautionary measures in favor of Jorge Castañeda Gutman without inviting the State to provide information or offer its observations, in other words, inaudita parte; (ii) it required the State to violate its domestic legal norms by ordering the registration of the beneficiary as a candidate for the office of President of the United Mexican States as a precautionary measure; (iii) it granted precautionary measures that revealed prejudgment from the start by processing the matter with unusual haste, and (iv) it proceeded irregularly by granting the precautionary measures, as revealed by the Order of the Inter-American Court of November 25, 2005, which decided that the matter did not merit granting provisional measures, because this would have entailed “an incidental anticipated judgment with the consequent establishment in limine litis of the facts and their respective consequences, object of the principal debate.” 44. Among other arguments, the Commission maintained that: (i) when it requires the adoption of a precautionary measure to protect the alleged victim’s rights, in keeping with its regulatory mandate, this does not anticipate the merits of the matter submitted to its consideration; (ii) it is not the first time that the Commission has granted precautionary measures to protect political rights, including the request for the provisional registration of the candidacies of an independent movement for Congress, until the merits of the matter raised have been decided; (iii) the State’s allegation is not a matter for a preliminary objection, in the sense that the decision on a preliminary objection is intended to determine whether the proceedings on merits should continue; therefore, the petition formulated the by the State must relate to the Court’s competence in relation to the merits of the case, which did not occur in this case, and (iv) the filing of a preliminary objection regarding a precautionary procedure is not generally admissible, and particularly if this procedure has concluded, as in this case, because it is understood that the precautionary measures procedure ended and lost all effectiveness with the State’s refusal to provisionally register the independent candidacy of the victim. Based on the above, the Commission requested that this preliminary objection be rejected. 45. The representatives did not add any observations to those submitted by the Commission. 46. The Court finds that the State’s allegation relating to the granting of precautionary measures by the Commission and the supposed prejudgment of this organ when granting them, is not an argument relating to a preliminary objection, because, the issues raised are 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 6, para. 33; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 41; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Preliminary objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 28. 16 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 13, para. 66; and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, para. 32.