infringes its right to defend itself.36 Also, the Court must preserve a fair balance between the protection of human rights, its ultimate goal, and the legal certainty and procedural equality that ensure the stability and reliability of international protection. 37 49. The Court has indicated that the processing of individual petitions is governed by guarantees that ensure that parties exercise the right to defend themselves in the proceedings. These guarantees are: a) those relating to the conditions for admissibility of the petitions (Articles 44 to 46 of the Convention),38 and b) those concerning the principle of right of rebuttal (Article 48 of the Convention)39 and procedural equality. In addition, it is necessary take into account the principle of legal certainty (Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission).40 50. Likewise, any party asserting that an action by the Commission during the proceedings before it was carried out with a grave error that affected the right to defend itself must clearly demonstrate such infringement. Therefore, in this regard, a complaint or difference of criteria in relation to the actions of the Inter-American Commission is insufficient.41 51. In this case, the Court, as a judicial body, will proceed to review the prior actions and decisions of the Commission in order to ensure the validity of the requirements of admissibility and the principles of right to rebuttal, procedural equality and legal certainty.42 52. First, regarding the inclusion of new rights in the Report on Merits that were not previously listed in the Commission's Report on Admissibility, the Court confirms that in the American Convention and in the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission there is no regulation indicating that all of the rights allegedly violated must be established in the Report on Admissibility. In this regard, Articles 4643 and 4744 of the American Convention 36 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 42, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, para. 28. 37 Cf. Case of Cayara v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 63; Case of Baena Ricardo et. al. v. Panama. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 42 and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, para. 28. 38 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, para. 85; Case of Grande v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 231, para. 56. 39 Advisory Opinion OC-19/50 and Case of Grande v. Argentina, para. 56. 40 Cf. Case of Grande v. Argentina, para. 56 and Advisory Opinion OC-19/05, para. 27. 41 Cfr. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 32, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 27. 42 Case of Grande v. Argentina, para. 46, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, para. 34. 43 Article 46 of the Convention establishes that: 1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a) that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law; b) that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment; c) that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement; and d) that, in the case of Article 44, the petition contains the name, nationality, profession, domicile and signature of the person or persons or of the legal representative of the entity lodging the petition. 2. The provisions of paragraphs 1.a and 16