of the extrajudicial killings, resulting in the irreparable loss of evidence and rendering that trial ineffective; and (ii) the admissibility analysis had been conducted on the basis of facts that were known to both parties, and thus there had been no loss of legal certainty. With respect to the argument that the Commission had formed a premature judgment, the representatives held that the Commission’s statement should be taken as “a prima facie or preliminary analysis to determine whether a violation may have existed and to meet the requirements of admissibility, rather than to determine whether a violation had actually occurred. They believed, moreover, that the State’s arguments concerning the unwarranted delay pertained more properly to the merits of the case. Because the State had not demonstrated any serious error that could have undermined its right to defense, the representatives asked the Court to deny the preliminary objection. Considerations of the Court 37. The Court finds it relevant to recall that, according to its case law, when a preliminary objection questions the Commission’s actions regarding a process undertaken before it, the Inter-American Commission has full autonomy and independence to exercise its mandate in accordance with the American Convention, particularly in the exercise of the functions entrusted to it for processing individual petitions, set forth in Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention.23 In turn, when the Court examines matters, it has the authority to review the legality of the Commission’s action. 24 It does not necessarily have to review the proceedings conducted before the Commission,25 unless one of the parties submits a well-founded claim that there has been a serious error that violated its right of defense.26 The Court must preserve a fair balance between the protection of human rights, which is the ultimate purpose of the inter-American system, and the legal certainty and procedural equity that will safeguard the stability and reliability of international protection.27 38. Therefore, in keeping with the Court’s consistent case law, the party affirming that an action by the Commission during the proceedings before it has been irregular, affecting its right of defense, must prove this prejudice. 28 In this regard, a complaint or difference of opinion in relation to the actions of the Inter-American Commission is not sufficient.29 The task at hand Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Articles 41 and 44 to 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-19/05 of November 28, 2005. Series A No. 19, operative paragraph one, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 54. 23 Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, supra, operative paragraph three, and Case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 26, 2014. Series C No. 278, para. 102. 24 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 Brewer Carías v. Venezuela, supra, para. 102. 25 Cf. Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 28, and Case of Pacheco Tineo family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, note 32. 26 Cf. Case of Cayara v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 63, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 25. 27 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, supra, para. 42, and Case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela, supra, para. 102. 28 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, supra, para. 42, and Case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela, supra, para. 102. 29