73. The Commission pointed to Article 30 of its Rules of Procedure in effect at the time the petition was submitted, and held that it has met its obligation under the Convention and Rules of Procedure, as it had sent the relevant sections of the petition to the State, which, after requesting a time extension, had filed its observations on December 1, 2003. The Commission commented, in this regard, that the State had merely questioned the alleged swiftness of the admissibility process, which meant it recognized compliance with the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. It therefore asked the Court to deny the preliminary objection for lack of merit. 74. The representatives said that Peru in the instant case had not provided grounds to claim manifest error or noncompliance with the requirements for admissibility in breach of its right to defense or any other right, that could justify a reconsideration of the procedure before the Commission. The representatives also felt that Peru’s claims better resembled a complaint or disagreement with the criteria for the Commission’s actions, and this was an insufficient basis to justify a preliminary objection. The representatives maintained that the Commission’s actions had been fully consistent with the provisions of Articles 26 to 30 of its Rules of Procedure applicable to the case, which covered the initial review of the petition and the admissibility procedure. They added that the State had not shown how its right to defense had been undermined by the amount of time the Commission took to make its admissibility decision, as both parties had been given an opportunity to file their arguments. Nor had it demonstrated that the amount of time had breached the parties’ procedural equality, and it could not be said that the principle of procedural equality applied to parties in other processes involving different facts and different claims, under circumstances different from those of the instant case, and therefore they held that the State’s argument in this regard was not valid. The representatives also held that in any case, the time period under discussion had affected both parties alike, and therefore, procedural equality had not been affected. They therefore asked that the preliminary objection be denied. Considerations of the Court 75. The Court finds it worth mentioning that the inter-American system for the protection of human rights is built on a foundation of the full autonomy and independence of its organs for the exercise of the functions entrusted to them; and that it is only in the area mentioned above (supra para. 37) that the Court has the power to review whether the Commission has complied with the provisions of the American Convention, the Statutes and the Rules of Procedure.57 76. Article 30 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in force while the instant case was in the admissibility stage established: 1. The Commission, through its Executive Secretariat, shall process the petitions that meet the requirements set forth in Article 28 of these Rules of Procedure. 2. For this purpose, it shall forward the relevant parts of the petition to the State in question. The identity of the petitioner shall not be revealed without his or her express authorization. The request for information made to the State shall not constitute a prejudgment with regard to any decision the Commission may adopt on the admissibility of the petition. 3. The State shall submit its response within three months from the date the request is transmitted. The Executive Secretariat shall evaluate requests for extensions of the Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, supra, para. 25. 57