41. Moreover, regarding the arguments presented by the representatives in connection with an alleged violation of Article 21 of the Convention, the Court notes that the first clause of the text of the reservation only excludes from the Court’s jurisdiction those issues “relating to the government's economic policy.” Meanwhile, the second clause of the reservation indicates that the Court cannot consider cases in which domestic courts have issued a ruling based on criteria such as “public utility,” “social interest” or “fair compensation.” While it is true that the text of the reservation does not specify the main components for determining which “questions are inherent to the Government’s economic policy,” the Court considers that the first line of this reservation should be understood as a limitation for the organs of the Inter-American System to review general economic policies related to aspects of the right to property enshrined in Article 21 of the American Convention. Regarding the second clause of the reservation, the State did not submit specific arguments, and therefore the Court considers it unnecessary to make a literal interpretation thereof. 42. In the instant case, the representatives’ arguments concerning the alleged violation of Article 21 are based on the fact that: i) “the application of the method of payment established by Law 23.982 and the delay in the process [of] execution of the judgment resulted in non-compliance with a compensation award recognized by a firm court decision, [therefore] it must be concluded that a right acquired by the beneficiary of the compensation was infringed,” and ii) “the breach of the right to property derive[d] from the disregard of a decision issued by a judicial body, a resolution that guaranteed a compensation credit that makes clear provision for reparation and subsistence.” 43. In this regard, the Court considers that the representatives of the alleged victims are not calling for the review of an issue inherent to an economic policy adopted by the State. On the contrary, the Court notes that the arguments regarding the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Convention, in this case, are related to alleged infringements of said right deriving from the judicial proceedings and their execution, which will be examined in the analysis of the merits of the case (infra para. 206-223). Accordingly, the Court concludes that in the instant case the reservation made by Argentina is not applicable, insofar as the Court has not been asked to review an economic policy of the government. 44. Therefore, the Court rejects the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court to consider arguments concerning the consequences of the implementation of Law 23.982 of the debt consolidation regime. C) “Preliminary Objection regarding the violation of the State of Argentina’s right to defend itself during the substantiation of the case before the [Inter-American] Commission” Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 45. The State argued that during the proceedings before the Commission “its right to defend itself was violated,” given that the Report on Admissibility “only made reference to Articles 8, 19, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention” and the Report on Merits concluded that the State was also responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention.” In this regard, it noted that “it was deprived [...] of any possibility of submitting arguments to defend itself with regard to Article 5” of the Convention, and that “the circumstance that the facts comprising the alleged violation were analyzed by the Commission in relation [... to] Article 8[,] is not equivalent to the State having had the opportunity to submit its defense with regard to the right to personal integrity.” It indicated that “agreeing to proceedings of this nature would give States the 14