45. On January 28, 2020, the representatives advised that, in January 2020, two new disciplinary proceedings had been filed against the presumed victim and asked that these be considered as supervening facts. 46. The Court considers that these facts are unrelated to the purpose of this case, so that they cannot be considered as supervening facts. B. Review of the legality of the Commission’s actions 47. The representatives asked the Court to review the legality of the actions of the InterAmerican Commission. They argued that the Commission: (i) in the absence of a response from the State, failed to consider that the facts had been proved; to the contrary, on four occasions it asked the State to provide information with the result that the admissibility procedure continued for seven years and two months; (ii) failed to comply with its own Rules of Procedure by, on August 30, 2016, granting the State an extension – requested belatedly – to present its observations on the merits; (iii) failed to comply with the provisions of Article 51 of the Convention by granting the State extensions before submitting the case to the Court, and (iv) failed to include in its legal analysis the disciplinary proceedings reported by the representatives in their brief with observations on the merits. 48. The Court recalls that, in order to review the legality of the procedure before the Commission, the party that argues that an action of the Commission during the procedure before it has been conducted irregularly affecting its right of defense must prove this prejudice. It is not sufficient to submit a complaint or difference of opinion in relation to the InterAmerican Commission’s actions.20 49. The Court reiterates that the Inter-American Commission has autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate as established by the American Convention. 21 It is outside this Court’s competence to review the legality of the procedure in a case before the Commission in abstract merely for declaratory purposes.22 50. The Court has already determined the purpose of this litigation and, therefore, finds it unnecessary to rule on the alleged irregular action of the Commission by excluding the disciplinary proceedings filed after the analysis made in the Merits Report. Regarding the other arguments set forth by the representatives, the Court notes that these do not explain the purpose of the review of legality requested. Therefore, the Court considers that the representatives’ request is inadmissible. VI EVIDENCE A. Admission of the documentary evidence Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 32, and Case of the Dismissed Workers of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 358, para. 51. 20 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, first operative paragraph, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (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. 21 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 54. 22 12