lodged, it adopted the Merits Report on October 5, 2018. The State argued that the difficulties in obtaining evidence violated the adversarial principle and procedural fairness and, consequently, the principle of legal certainty. In conclusion, it argued that, since its defense had been affected due to the passage of time, the required legality of the Commission’s actions had been violated. Therefore, the State asked the Court to conduct a control of legality of the Commission’s actions and determine that the right of defense had been harmed. 19. The representative argued that the State was trying “to convert itself into a victim of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because it had not always ensured the reasonableness of the time frames while processing the case.” 20. The Commission noted that the Court’s case law indicated that control of the legality of the Commission’s actions should be extremely restricted because, otherwise, its autonomy and independence were jeopardized. It explained that “this is only applicable in those cases in which it is proved that a serious error has been made which adversely affects the State’s right of defense that would justify the inadmissibility of a case before the Court. B.2. Considerations of the Court 21. The Court has already ruled on control of the legality of the procedure before the Commission. It has indicated that this is applicable when it has been proved that a serious error has been made which adversely affects the State’s right of defense that would justify the inadmissibility of a case before the Court.12 Thus, the Court must analyze whether the Commission’s actions have caused any violation of the State’s right to defend itself. 22. In the instant case, although the Court has noted that the procedure before the Commission lasted more than 15 years, the State’s argument concerning the supposed violation of the right of defense is confined to the fact that, owing to the passage of time, difficulties arose “to obtain evidence,” as well as “difficulties to prepare the State’s defense strategy,” because it was “forced to amend the objections to admissibility initially proposed owing to a change in the factual framework that had rendered the substantiation of the proposed objection insufficient.” This Court considers that this argument does not provide a concrete reason for the inadmissibility of the case because, although the passage of time has meant that the State has had to modify its defense strategy in relation to preliminary objections, it does not signify that a serious error has occurred that has prevented it from defending itself before either the Commission or the Court.13 23. The Court considers that, fundamentally, the time taken to process this case before the Commission caused significant prejudice to the presumed victims whose right of access to interAmerican justice was harmed.14 24. Therefore, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. 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 Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 38. 12 13 Cf. Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador, supra, para. 39. 14 Cf. Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador, supra, para. 40. 7