29. The Commission affirmed that the State’s arguments on its assessment of the evidence “do not have the characteristics of a preliminary objection, but of a dispute on the merits of two groups of facts.” In addition, it held that the State’s disagreement with the said assessment of the evidence “cannot be understood as a situation of its defenselessness or a violation of its right to defense.” The Commission indicated that “such arguments cannot be examined without analyzing the merits of the case” and that “[i]t corresponds to the Court, in the proceedings before it, to make the corresponding factual determinations.” B) Considerations of the Court 30. The Court has stated that preliminary objections are acts that seek to prevent the analysis of the merits of a disputed matter by contesting the admissibility of an application or the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any aspect of the latter, owing either to the person, matter, time, or place, provided that these objections are of a preliminary nature.19 If these objections cannot be examined without previously analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be examined by means of a preliminary objection.20 31. The Court observes that the State has not alleged that there was a violation of the State’s right of defense in the case before the Commission; but rather it indicates its disagreement with the assessment of the evidence made by the Commission with regard to two factual determinations from which it determines State responsibility. 32. Although the facts of the Merits Report submitted to the consideration of the Court constitute the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court,21 the Court is not limited by the assessment of the evidence and characterization of the facts made by the Commission in the exercise of its authority.22 The Court makes its own determination of the facts of the case, evaluating the evidence offered by the Commission and the parties, and the useful evidence requested, respecting the right of defense of the parties and the purpose of the litis.23 During the proceedings before the Court, the State has procedural opportunities to exercise its right of defense and to contest and reject the facts submitted to the Court’s consideration. Moreover, the arguments submitted by the State when filling the preliminary object will be taken into account when establishing the facts that this Court finds proved and determining whether the State is internationally responsible for the alleged violations of the treaty-based rights. 19 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 39. 20 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 39. 21 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 34. 22 Cf. inter alia, Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of March 155, 1989. Series C No. 6, paras. 153 to 161, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 210 to 228. 23 Cf. inter alia, Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 19, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 27. 13