Chocrón,222 that although the supervision of the Inter-American Court is of a subsidiary, supplementary and complementary nature,223 Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention stipulates that the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies must be interpreted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law, which include the principle establishing that the use of this rule is a defense available to the State and, therefore, must be verified at the procedural moment in which the objection has been filed. If it is not filed while the admissibility is being processed before the Commission, the State has relinquished the possibility of using this measure of defense before the Court. This has been recognized not only by this Court,224 but also by the European Court of Human Rights.225 Consequently, the Court reiterates that the interpretation that it has given to Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention for more than 20 years is in conformity with international law. 115. Furthermore, it is pertinent to recall that, when the Commission’s conduct in relation to the proceedings followed before it is questioned 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, in particular, in the exercise of its functions in relation to the processing of individual petitions established by Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention.226 However, in matters it is considering, the Court has the authority to monitor the legality of the Commission’s conduct,227 which does not necessarily mean reviewing the proceedings conducted before the latter,228 unless there has been a grave error that violates the right to defense of the parties.229 Lastly, the party who affirms that the conduct of the Commission during the proceedings before it has been irregular and impaired the right to defense must prove 222 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 20; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 22, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 21. 223 Cf. Preamble and Article 46 of the American Convention on Human Rights. See also: The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 31, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 21. 224 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, citing the Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al., Decision of November 13, 1981, No. G 101/81. Series A, para. 26, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011 Series C No. 228, paras. 27 and 29. 225 Cf. ECHR, Case of De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp ("Vagrancy" Cases) v. Belgium (Merits), Judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, paras. 54 and 55; ECHR, Case of Foti et al. v. Italy, Judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, para. 46, and ECHR, Case of Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, Judgment of 21 June 2007, paras. 90 and 91. 226 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 Grande v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011 Series C No. 231, para. 45. 227 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, supra note 8, third operative paragraph, and Case of Grande v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011 Series C No. 231, para. 45. 228 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 González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, para. 28. 229 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, para. 66, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, para. 28. 43