- 10 - 15. Observations on the helpful information and evidence and the supervening evidence on expenses. On January 18 and 19, 2018, the representatives and the State, respectively, presented their observations on the documentation submitted by the other party together with their final written arguments. In addition, on September 21 and October 3, 2018, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the documentation presented by the State on September 12, 2018. 16. Deliberation of the case. The Court began to deliberate this judgment on November 26, 2018. III JURISDICTION 17. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention because Mexico has been a State Party to the Convention since March 24, 1981, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of this Court on December 16, 1998. Furthermore, the State deposited the instruments ratifying the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on June 22, 1987, and the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women on November 12, 1998. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 18. The State filed a preliminary objection arguing that the Commission had committed a serious error that violated its right to defend itself because, during the processing of the case before that organ, it failed to respect the guarantee of procedural balance between the parties, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of complementarity. It explained that the State’s preliminary objection was based on the serious error committed by the Commission owing to: (i) “the inappropriate way in which it submitted the case to the Court, disregarding the strict and essential application of the principle of complementarity required by the American Convention; (ii) its failure to rule on the measures of reparation adopted by the State, and (iii) the granting of extremely brief extensions to the State to comply with recommendations aimed at producing structural changes.” Mexico indicated that the Commission had not provided “a reasoned reply” to its arguments, or “at least, made its recommendations on a gradual basis” that would reflect the State’s adoption of certain measures; rather “it merely mentioned that the State had not complied with the reparations” while, at the same time, it did respond to the representatives’ arguments in violation of the procedural balance between the parties. Therefore, the State indicated that the Commission’s failure to rule on the principle of complementarity constituted an error the gravity of which was “sufficient to determine the inadmissibility of the case.” The State also indicated that it was not asking the Court to exercise a control of the legality of the Commission’s actions merely for declarative purposes, but rather “the purpose of its preliminary objection [was] for the […] Court to declare the case inadmissible, in light of the legal possibilities available.” 19. The Commission indicated that the State’s allegations were not of the nature of a preliminary objection and were, therefore, manifestly inadmissible. It argued that: (i) the grounds for the preliminary objection were that the State did not agree with its assessment of the reparations offered and of the status of compliance with the recommendations made in the Merits Report, and (ii) the Mexican State had not satisfied the burden of proof and argument required by the Court to execute a control of the legality of the Commission’s actions, because it had not