26. The representatives indicated that the Commission, as guarantor of the rights and guarantees established in the Convention, was able to indicate violations that the petitioner had not mentioned in light of the facts it became aware of during the international procedure. Accordingly, it was not possible to observe the alleged prejudice due to a violation of the right of defense. c.2 Considerations of the Court 27. In the instant case, the Court observes that the alleged violations derived from the action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins do form part of the facts of the case in the procedure before the Commission at both the admissibility and the merits stage. Indeed, in its Admissibility Report of October 13, 2004, the Commission indicated that the administrative proceedings for damages, which had been underway for more than four years, had still not concluded. Therefore, there had been an unjustified delay in the administration of justice that provided grounds for invoking the exception established in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention.12 Furthermore, in its Merits Report of December 6, 2016, the Commission specifically analyzed the duration, complexity, and actions of the state authorities and of the petitioner himself to reach the conclusion that the action for damages filed by Mr. Jenkins had not complied with the inter-American standards for a reasonable time. Based on the foregoing, the Court observes that throughout the proceedings, before both the Commission and the Court, the State has had the procedural opportunity to present its position, refute and challenge the facts alleged by the other party and the Commission, and to use every probative action that it deemed pertinent in its defense, thus respecting the principle of the procedural balance between the parties. Consequently, the Court rejects the State’s preliminary objection. D. Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae d.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 28. Lastly, the State underscored that the representatives had referred to instruments such as the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Protocol establishing the Mercosur Parliament. Consequently, the State argued that, with the exception of the American Convention, none of the instruments whose violation was denounced by the representatives, formed part of the list of applicable instruments. Furthermore, the Court lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae to apply the Argentine National Constitution, because this corresponded to the domestic courts. 29. The Commission argued that the representatives were not asking the Court to apply the said instruments in this specific case or to establish the international responsibility of the State for their violation. It therefore considered that it was not appropriate to admit the objection filed by the State because it did not relate to a claim made by the representatives. 30. The representatives argued that, in light of Article 2 of the Convention, the Argentine State had undertaken to adapt its internal laws to the terms of this instrument. Therefore, both the Court and the Commission were able to analyze, interpret and even suggest the amendment of domestic laws in order to monitor compliance with this international mandate. They also indicated that the Court had the inherent authority to determine the scope of its own competence and that this was 12 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 50/04, Petition 12,056, of October 13, 2004 (evidence file, folio 60). 9