defense of the parties and that the harm was relevant and manifestly grave. With respect to the alleged contradiction in the Commission’s pleadings, the representatives claimed that it concerned two different situations. One is the absence of effective judicial remedies for those who were dismissed from the Congress and the other is that the employees had filed the remedies established in the subsequent legislation, which were intended to repair the consequences of the irregular dismissals. A.2 Considerations of the Court 20. The Court recalls that matters under its consideration include a control of legality of the Commission’s actions. This, however, does not necessarily presuppose a review de oficio of the proceedings carried out at that level. In addition, the Court must preserve a fair balance between the protection of human rights, the ultimate purpose of the inter-American system, and legal security and procedural equity that would assure stability and confidence in international protection. Thus, this control is appropriate when a party alleges that there has been a grave error that affects its right of defense, in which event it must effectively demonstrate such prejudice. A complaint or a discrepancy of criteria with respect to the Commission’s actions is not sufficient.12 21. The State has claimed that its right of defense was affected by the Commission’s decision to defer the question of admissibility to the examination of the merits due to the lack of certainty regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies by a group of alleged victims and because of alleged contradictions in the Commission’s arguments. 22. With respect to the first argument, the Court finds that the Commission deferred the examination of admissibility pursuant to the terms of Article 36(3) of its Rules and to the terms of Resolution 1/16 on “Measures to reduce the procedural backlog.” As the Commission indicated, this decision was also duly transmitted to the parties, which guaranteed the State’s right of defense.13 This indicates that the Commission acted within the framework of its regulatory authority, which respects the due process of the parties, and with strict respect for the right of defense. Therefore, the State’s request of control of legality is inadmissible. 23. Moreover, the Court finds that the State’s other arguments refer to the preliminary objection on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, which will be considered in the appropriate chapter (infra paras. 27-34). B. The alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 24. The State maintained that, at the time of the events, its legal order offered appropriate remedies to contest decisions and that their suitability is shown by the fact that some individuals utilized them and obtained responses that were favorable to their interests. However, 172 of the alleged victims did not exhaust any domestic remedy, while the 20 persons who filed a writ of amparo did not present an action that could contest the inapplicability of Decree-Law 25640. The State argued that “while it was not possible to Cf. Case of the Saramake People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 32 and Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 23, 2022. Series C No. 451, para. 17. 12 13 Cf. Note of the Commission to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, dated August 7, 2017 (evidence file, f. 1801). 8