C.1. Arguments of the State and observations by the Commission and the representative 26. The State claimed that the Commission “admitted the petition in relation to Articles 1(1), 7, 8 and 9 of the American Convention; however, in the Report on the Merits, it included […] Article 25 of that instrument” without any justification or grounds, which affects the “right of the State to defend itself” since it resulted in that this aspect was not debated before the Commission. Furthermore, it indicated that “you cannot claim that there was a violation of the right to an effective remedy only because the result was unfavorable for the petitioner.” 27. The Commission argued that the State’s claim does not have “the characteristics of a preliminary objection and corresponds to the debate on the merits.” In addition, “there is no regulation that establishes that the Report on the Merits must determine all of the rights allegedly violated” nor does it “constrain the Commission to perform the examination of [the case] exclusively in conformity with the violations indicated by the parties.” Thus, the Commission requested that “the objection be dismissed.” 28. The representative did not make any specific arguments in this regard. C.2. Considerations of the Court 29. Regarding the inclusion of new rights in the Report on the Merits that were not previously included in the Commission’s Admissibility Report, the Court confirms that in the American Convention and in the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission there is no regulation indicating that all of the rights allegedly violated must be established in the Admissibility Report.17 In this regard, Articles 4618 and 4719 of the American Convention establish the requirements for a petition to be declared admissible or inadmissible, but do not impose on the Commission the obligation to determine which rights will be subject to the proceedings. In this regard, the rights indicated in the Admissibility Report are the result of a preliminary assessment of the petition in progress; therefore, the possibility of including other rights or articles allegedly violated at subsequent stages of the proceedings is not limited, provided that the State’s right to defend itself is protected within the framework of the factual background of the case under consideration. 20 30. Finally, the Court considers that the analysis of the reasons why the Commission claimed the violation of Article 25 of the Convention by the State corresponds to the merits of the case. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the preliminary objection raised by the State. Cf. Case of Furlán and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 52, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 139. 18 Article 46 of the Convention establishes that: “(1) Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: (a) that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law; (b) that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment; (c) that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement; and (d) that, in the case of Article 44, the petition contains the name, nationality, profession, domicile and signature of the person or persons or of the legal representative of the entity lodging the petition; (2) The provisions of paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of this Article shall not be applicable when: (a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.” 19 Article 47 of the American Convention establishes that: “The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 if: (a) any of the requirements indicated in Article 46 has not been met; (b) the petition or communication does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention; (c) the statements of the petitioner or of the state indicate that the petition or communication is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order; or (d) the petition or communication is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” 20 Cf. Case of Furlán and family v. Argentina, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 52 and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 20. 17 9