9 proceedings relating to the processing of individual petitions, according to the terms of Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention.12 However, one of the Court’s powers is to monitor the legality of the Commission’s actions in regard to the processing of matters that are being heard by the Court. 13 This does not necessarily mean reviewing the proceedings carried out before the Commission, unless there exists a grave error that violates the right to defense of the parties.14 Lastly, the party that asserts that the Commission’s actions during the proceedings before it have been carried out in an irregular manner, which affected the party’s right to defense, must effectively demonstrate such detriment.15 Consequently, in this respect, a complaint or a difference of opinion in relation to the actions of the Inter-American Commission is not sufficient.16 23. In relation to this aspect, the Commission argued that “despite the fact that the State indicate[d] not having known the matter at issue that would be discussed at the hearing, during the hearing the State presented arguments related to the admissibility of the petition"; thus, said hearing constitutes an additional procedural opportunity to those already granted by the Commission to the State for the State to present all its arguments concerning admissibility. For their part, the representatives did not present specific arguments to this respect. 24. It is worth recalling that it is neither the Court’s nor the Commission’s task to identify ex officio the domestic remedies to be exhausted; rather, it is incumbent on the State to point out, in a timely manner, the domestic remedies which must be exhausted and to show their effectiveness. It is also not up to the international bodies to resolve the lack of precision in the allegations of the State,17 which despite having several procedural opportunities, did not timely raise the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 25. Furthermore, taking into account the characteristics of the instant case and the arguments put forward by the parties in this regard, this Tribunal considers that a preliminary analysis of the availability and/or effectiveness of the writ of habeas corpus, of the investigations into the alleged acts of torture, or of consular assistance in the particular circumstances of this case, would implicate an evaluation of the proceedings conducted by the State in relation to its obligation to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the international treaties, the violation of which is November 28, 2005. Series A No. 19, Operative Paragraph 1; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 31, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 9, para. 35. 12 Cf. Control of Legality in the Practice of Authorities of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (Arts. 41 & 44 to 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 11, Operative Paragraph 2; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 11, para. 31, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 9, para. 35. 13 Cf. Control of Legality in the Practice of Authorities of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (Arts. 41 & 44 to 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 11, Operative Paragraph 3; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 11, para. 31, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 9, para. 35. 14 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; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 11, para. 31, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 9, para. 35. 15 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.), supra note 14, para. 66; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 11, para. 31, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 9, para. 36. 16 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 42; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 11, para. 31, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 9, para. 36. 17 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 23, and Case of Usón Ramírez, supra note 10, para. 22.