pointed out that, pursuant to Articles 51 of the Convention, 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and 45 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, there is a presumption that cases are referred to the Court, unless there is a well-founded decision by an absolute majority of its members.11 It reiterated that the decision to submit the case to this Court was derived from the Commission’s own autonomous practice and that this does not affect the State’s right to due process or its right to defense. Through the adversarial proceedings before the Court, the State may report on the actions it has taken after the events that gave rise to the violations declared in the Merits Report, and argue why, in its opinion, this precludes a declaration of the State’s international responsibility. Thus, it considered that the State’s arguments do not constitute a preliminary objection, but rather a manifestation of its nonconformity and/or disagreement with the decision to submit the case to the Court. 22. Regarding the second issue related to the application of the iura novit curia principle, the Commission pointed out that both organs of the inter-American system are empowered to legally classify the facts submitted to them. In addition, it argued that the State had knowledge of the facts that supported the inclusion of Articles 9 and 25(1) of the Convention from the moment the initial petition was submitted to the Commission, since at all stages of the criminal proceedings, Articles 416, 417 and 418 of the Criminal Code and Article 29 of Law No. 19.733 were applied, and the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the appeal for annulment constituted the factual basis for the Commission’s decision. The State then had an opportunity to submit any observations it deemed pertinent on those issues, as indeed it did. Thus, in view of the fact that “the State has not proven any serious harm to its right of defense,” the Commission asked the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection. A.2. Considerations of the Court 23. The State’s arguments amount to a request for a review of the legality of the Commission’s actions. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in matters within its jurisdiction, it has the power to review the legality of the Commission’s actions, but this does not necessarily imply an ex officio review of the proceedings before the Commission. Furthermore, the Court must maintain a fair balance between the protection of human rights - the ultimate purpose of the Inter-American System - and the legal certainty and procedural equality that ensure the stability and reliability of international protection.12 The Court also recalls that a party claiming that the Commission’s actions have been seriously flawed in a manner that impaired its right of defense must effectively demonstrate such prejudice. Therefore, in this regard, a complaint or difference of opinion in relation to the actions of the Inter-American Commission is not sufficient.13 The Commission indicated that when it submitted the case, it considered that after four extensions had been granted, and fourteen months had passed since the notification of the Merits Report, the State had not made significant progress in complying with the recommendations, and did not request the granting of a new extension. In this regard, it stated: a) on the first recommendation “the Commission observes that the criminal conviction against Mr. Baraona was annulled and a final dismissal was issued. However, said dismissal […]would have responded to the application of a procedural mechanism and not to the recognition of the unconstitutionality of the crime for which Mr. Baraona was convicted nor to the application of the standards of the Inter-American system on the special protection of public interest speech […]”; b) regarding the second recommendation it stated that “the [alleged] victim did not receive any compensation”; and c) regarding the recommendation to adapt domestic legislation, it indicated “there is no dispute over the fact that the draft Criminal Code that would, according to the State, make it possible to comply with the recommendation regarding the adaptation of criminal legislation, has not yet been discussed in the National Congress.” 12 Cf. Case of the Saramaka 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. 16. 13 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra, para. 32, and Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 17. 11 8