12. The State indicated, as “preliminary comments,” that “the submission of the instant case to this jurisdictional instance, [was] incompatible with the function of guarantor of interAmerican public order granted to the Commission.” According to the State, “the matters submitted to the Court’s analysis [in this case] have already been examined in previous cases,” and concern “disputes between private individuals.” It indicated that “the cases submitted to the Court should contribute to enhancing the standards for the protection of human rights,” “involve innovative issues and […] respect the subsidiary nature of the system for the protection of human rights,” in order “to avoid a jurisdictional repetition, and reserve the Court for cases with institutional significance.” In this regard, it indicated that this was “reaffirmed by the Order of December 19, 2012,” in which it was asserted that the expert opinion offered by the Commission had no relevant effects on inter-American public order.” Meanwhile, the Commission affirmed that its authority to submit a case to the Court “is not limited, and does not distinguish whether or not a case has institutional significance, [because,] owing to the way in which it was designed, the system of individual petitions […] constitutes a system of justice accessible to everyone, irrespective of whether their case has special characteristics or refers to an innovative issue.” In addition, the Commission clarified that “the concept of inter-American public order is limited to the Commission’s procedural actions before the Court once a case has been submitted.” The representatives did not refer to these arguments of the State. A.2) Considerations of the Court 13. First, the Court notes that the State included what it called “preliminary comments” without indicating their purpose or making any specific request in relation to them. Nevertheless, the Court finds it desirable to include some considerations in this regard. The American Convention grants the Inter-American Commission the authority to determine whether to submit a case to the Court or to continue examining it and to issue a final report that it may or may not publish. 9 The Court has establishes that the Commission has discretional – although never arbitrary – powers to decide, in each case, whether the State’s response to the report adopted under Article 50 of the Convention is appropriate or satisfactory, and whether it considers it pertinent to submit the case to the Court��s consideration. 10 The Commission’s assessment of whether or not to submit a case to the Court should be the result of its own autonomous procedure in its capacity as a supervisory organ of the American Convention. 11 This assessment should take into account the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure which stipulate four criteria that the Commission must consider when adopting that decision: the position of the petitioner; the nature and seriousness of the violation; the need to develop or clarify the case law of the 9 Article 51(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[i]f, within a period of three months from the date of the transmittal of the report of the Commission to the states concerned, the matter has not either been settled or submitted by the Commission or by the state concerned to the Court and its jurisdiction accepted, the Commission may, by the vote of an absolute majority of its members, set forth its opinion and conclusions concerning the question submitted for its consideration.” Meanwhile, Article 61(1) establishes that “[o]nly the States Parties and the Commission shall have the right to submit a case to the Court.” See also, Certain attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 47, and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 28, 1999. Series C No. 172, para. 39. 10 Cf. Certain attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 The American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 50, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Preliminary objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 33. 11 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, supra, para. 31, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012 Series C No. 248, para. 38. 8