instrument, such as the guarantee of access to justice. Owing to its nature and purpose, Article 46(2) of the American Convention is a norm with an autonomous content vis-à-vis the substantive norms of the Convention. Therefore, the determination of whether the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable to the case in question must be made before and separately from the analysis of the merits of the matter, because the standard of assessment differs from the one used to determine the presumed violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court will not begin to examine the merits of this case now, but rather will proceed to assess, exclusively, the information required to determine the admissibility of the exceptions to the exhaustion of the remedies, within the framework of its case law according to which this issue is “merely a matter of admissibility.” 128 102. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to recall that when the Commission’s decisions in relation to the proceedings before it are alleged as a preliminary objection, the Court has maintained that the Inter-American Commission has autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate as established in the American Convention, and particularly in the exercise of its functions in the proceedings concerning the processing of individual petitions established in Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention. 129 However, in matters that it is examining, the Court has the authority to examine the legality of the Commission’s actions; 130 although this does not necessarily mean reviewing the proceedings conducted before the latter, 131 unless there has been a serious error that violates the parties’ right of defense. 132 Lastly, the party affirming that an action of the Commission during the proceedings before it has been irregular, affecting their right of defense, must prove this prejudice. 133 In this regard, a complaint or difference of opinions in relation to the actions of the Inter-American Commission is not sufficient. 134 Taking the foregoing into account, the Court will now examine each of the exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the American Convention separately. B.3.3.1 The domestic legislation of the State does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated (Article 46(2)(a) 103. The Court has noted that the representatives argued that a structural problem existed which allegedly affected the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary and that could be summarized as the subjection of the Judicial Branch to the Executive Branch (supra para. 34). 128 Similarly, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, para. 88 and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C. No. 179, para. 40. 129 Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-19/05 of November 28, 2005. Series A No. 19, first operative paragraph, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, paras. 25 and 49. 130 Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-19/05, third operative paragraph, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, paras. 25 and 49. 131 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 66, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, paras. 25 and 49. 132 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, para. 66, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, paras. 25 and 49. 133 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, para. 66, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, paras. 27 and 49. 134 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 42, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, paras. 27 and 49. 34