17 this case.17 Lastly, under this section, the State formulated other arguments referring to the existence of an appropriate remedy and the non-obligatory nature of independent candidacies under domestic law. The Court observes that the State referred to the existence of an appropriate remedy in another preliminary objection and it has already ruled in this regard (supra paras. 30 to 36). The allegations about independent candidacies refer to the merits of the matter; hence this is not a preliminary objection. Based on the above, the Court rejects this argument. * * * 60. Fifth, the State alleged that the Commission had infringed Article 50 of the American Convention by adopting Report on admissibility and merits No. 113/06, among other reasons, because: (i) Article 50 of the Convention refers to a report that describes the facts and the conclusions, as well as the oral or written statements that the interested parties have made under Article 48(1)(e) of the Convention; in this regard, Report No. 113/06 offers a partial and incomplete description of the facts and does not reflect the elements contained in the file before the Commission; (ii) the facts on which the Report is based do not correspond to a true account of what occurred, and are not supported by objective elements; moreover, both the merits and the recommendations are based on erroneous, false and incomplete premises; and (iii) neither a right to submit an independent candidacy, nor that the party system is per se inappropriate can be inferred from Article 23 of the Convention; the establishment of independent candidacies is a decision for the legislator and requires a prior legal basis that does not involve modifying the Constitution; however, the Constitution does not make such candidacies obligatory or order them. 61. The Commission submitted the following arguments, among others: (i) at this procedural stage of formal objections, it is not for the parties to the proceedings to propose objections that are based on the veracity of the facts, since it is for the Court to determine the truth, since it has authority to reach its own conclusions about the facts of the case and decide aspects of law that have not been alleged by the parties under the iura novit curia principle; and (ii) the Convention establishes a qualified system of protection that involves the Court, as a jurisdictional organ for the matter, so that, if a State disagrees with the Commission’s findings and considers that it is not lawful to comply with the Commission’s recommendations, the Convention offers the possibility of submitting the matter to the jurisdiction of the Court. Based on the above, the Commission asked the Court to reject this preliminary objection. 62. The representatives did not add any observations to those submitted by the Commission. 63. The Court observes that the States arguments relating to the Inter-American Commission’s Report on admissibility and merits No. 113/06, to the effect that it provided a “partial and incomplete description of the facts”; that the facts “do not correspond to a true account of what occurred,” and that “both the merits and the recommendations” were based on “erroneous, false and incomplete premises” are arguments that relate to the merits of the case before the Court. Indeed, the Court’s examination of whether the Commission’s interpretation of the facts or the conclusions in this case are erroneous, evidently refers to the merits of the case, and only at that stage can the Court examine these allegations by the State. Moreover, the Court considers it opportune to observe that, should the State 17 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 141; and Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 44.