12 Convention nor the Court’s Rules of Procedure define the concept of “preliminary objection,” according to the Court’s case law, it can be defined as the procedural act that contests the admissibility of an application or the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any of its aspects based on the person, the issue, the time or the place.9 The purpose of a preliminary objection is to obtain a decision that prevents or impedes the examination of the merits of the matter questioned or of the whole case. Accordingly, irrespective of whether an assertion is defined as a “preliminary objection,” its content and purpose must have the essential juridical characteristics that ensure that it is of a preliminary nature. Assertions that are not of this nature, such as those that refer to the merits of a case, can be formulated during other procedural acts established in the American Convention, but not as a preliminary objection. 40. When a preliminary objection questions the Commission’s actions concerning proceedings before it, it should be recalled that the Court has stated that the InterAmerican Commission has autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate as established by the American Convention10 and, particularly, in the exercise of its functions in the proceedings relating to the processing of individual petitions established in Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention.11 However, one of the Court’s attributes is to monitor the legality of the Commission’s actions as regards processing matters that are being heard by the Court.12 The Court has upheld the opinion that the American Convention grants it full jurisdiction over matters relating to a case submitted to its consideration, including the procedural assumptions on which the possibility of it exercising its jurisdiction are based.13 This does not necessarily mean reviewing the proceedings before the Commission, unless there has been a grave error that violates the right to defense of the parties.14 41. Moreover, in this regard, the Court emphasizes its findings since its first contentious case, to the effect that, under international case law, the failure to observe certain formalities is not always relevant, because the essential factor is that the necessary conditions are preserved to ensure that the procedural rights of the parties are not reduced or unbalanced and to achieve the purposes for which the different proceedings have been 9 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; and Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Order of the Court of October 18, 2007, second considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Control of Legality in the Exercise of the Authority of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 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. 11 Cf. Control of Legality in the Exercise of the Authority of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 10, second operative paragraph. 12 Cf. Control of Legality in the Exercise of the Authority of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 10, third operative paragraph 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 6, para. 29; 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 Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 15. 14 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 13, para. 66; and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, paras. 32 and 40.