daunting task of having to imagine and respond to [...] alleged violations based on facts [or claims] not submitted by the petitioners or included in the reports on admissibility.” Moreover, it indicated that “erroneously invoking of the principle of iura novit curia cannot correct a State’s situation when at the end of the proceedings before the C[ommission] it is found responsible for a violation on which it never had the chance to defend itself.” 46. The Commission pointed out that Article 46 of the Convention “only establishes that, at this stage, the Commission must determine whether the petition meets the established admissibility requirements.” It added that the usual practice of the System’s organs has been “to perform an analysis of the facts submitted for its consideration from a perspective that is not limited to the legal provisions invoked [...] but that includes those that are relevant and applicable to those facts.” It indicated that since the beginning of the processing of the petition “Argentina had knowledge of the ‘physical and mental’ injuries alleged by the petitioner to his detriment and that of his family due to the actions of the State.” It indicated that “after the Report on Admissibility, the State provided [...] the court records [...] based on [which], and according to facts that the State was fully aware of since the initial petition, the Commission determined that there were contents and significant facts upon which to base a judgment [with regard] to the personal integrity of the members of the Furlan family.” The Commission claimed that it took into account that: i) “the State had full knowledge of all of the allegations and evidence submitted in this regard”; ii) the State “had numerous opportunities to respond”; and iii) “in many cases, during the processing [of a matter] information arises [that] increasingly confirms the consequences suffered by the family.” 47. The representatives indicated that “there is a [c]orrelation between the requests of the alleged victims, the Report on Admissibility and the Report on Merits regarding the violation of the right to personal integrity.” They argued that the alleged victims had expressed “with absolute clarity” since the early stages of the proceedings before the Commission “the impairments suffered to their personal integrity,” considerations that were “included in the Report on Admissibility.” Based on the foregoing, the representatives stated that “in the context of these factual assertions, and in application of the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission decided to examine [...] ‘the infringement of the right to personal integrity established in Article 5(1), as a result of the unwarranted delay in which the State incurred’ [...] both with regard to Sebastián and his family.” They concluded that “the principles of the right of rebuttal, procedural equality and legal certainty were complied with throughout the processing of the case” before the Commission. Considerations of the Court 48. When a preliminary objection is based on questioning the actions of the Commission in relation to proceedings before it, the Court has previously indicated that the InterAmerican Commission has autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate, as established by the American Convention, and particularly in the exercise of functions within its jurisdiction regarding the processing of individual petitions as set forth in Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention. However, in matters under its consideration, the Court has the authority to perform a control of due process of the actions of the Commission.35 This does not necessarily presuppose reviewing the proceedings carried out before it, except in the event that one of the parties claims with justification that a grave error has occurred which 35 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, operative paragraphs one and three; and Case of Grande v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 231, para. 45, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, para. 28. 15