15 In conclusion, in order to decide whether or not to admit the petition, the Commission carries out a second control of conventionality of the petition, comparing it with the provisions of the Convention as regards the requirements that logically could and should have been met only when it took place, that is, when it was “lodged.” F. The Court’s ruling Lastly, in relation to the Court’s function as regards compliance with the requirements that the petition must meet, it should be recalled that, according to Article 61(2) of the Convention, “(i)n order for the Court to hear a case, it is necessary that the procedures set forth in Articles 48 and 50 shall have been completed.” Thus, the Court must verify that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been duly complied with before the Commission. As the Court has asserted in the judgment of Cruz Sánchez et al., “in matters that it is hearing, the Court has the authority to carry out a control of the legality of the Commission’s actions,” 43 and that it “has the authority to review whether the Commission has complied with the statutory and regulatory provisions, as well as those of the Convention.” 44 And it could not be otherwise, because if it were not so, the Commission would be accorded the broadest possible authority to take an exclusive and final decision on the admission or rejection of a petition, which would clearly mean that this power would be discretionary and could even be arbitrary, undermining the jurisdiction of the Court, because, under this assumption, the Court would have no alternative but merely to be an entity that confirms or observes, without even ratifying, the actions of the Commission, and there can be no doubt that this is not in keeping with the letter and spirit of said Article 61(2) of the Convention. In this regard, it should not be forgotten that the Commission is the one that submits the relevant case before the Court and, therefore, is a party to the corresponding litigation, fulfilling its function of “defense of human rights.” For this it must necessarily and legitimately adopt one of the positions in dispute in the corresponding case and, consequently, it must be biased. It follows, then, that its own actions in the processing of the case subsequently submitted to the Court may be challenged before the Court, in accordance with the principles of adversarial proceedings and procedural balance between the parties that should prevail in judicial cases. G. Legal consequences of considering the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies as a requirement for the admissibility of the petition and not a requirement of the petition itself In addition to the above considerations, it should be reiterated that if it were not compulsory to have exhausted the domestic remedies before lodging the petition, it would be permissible that, at least for some time - that is, between the moment at which the petition is lodged and the moment at which the decision is taken on its admissibility (which in many situations may be considered extremely lengthy) - the same case could be dealt with simultaneously by both the domestic jurisdiction and the international jurisdiction. This would evidently render the statement in the second paragraph of the Preamble meaningless, and even the rule of prior 43 Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, cit., para. 37. 44 Idem, para. 75. .