68. The Court recalls that, in matters under its jurisdiction, it has the power to review the legality of the Commission’s actions. 76 This does not necessarily imply an ex officio review of the proceedings before the Commission, 77 except in those cases in which one of the parties alleges a serious error that violates their right of defense before the Court. 78 Likewise, the Court must maintain a fair balance between the protection of human rights – the ultimate purpose of the inter-American system - and the legal certainty and procedural equality that ensure the stability and reliability of international protection. 79 Therefore, any party that claims that the Commission’s actions during the proceedings before it have been carried out in an irregular manner, affecting its right of defense before the Court, must effectively prove such prejudice. 80 A complaint or difference of criteria in relation to the actions of the InterAmerican Commission is not sufficient. 81 It is therefore necessary to consider the grounds adduced by the State in order to determine whether the Commission’s actions would have violated its right of defense. 69. Accordingly, the Court will now analyze the arguments presented by the State on this preliminary objection in the following order: i) alleged inadequate analysis by the Commission; ii) alleged incomplete submission of the case file to the Commission; iii) the two pleadings and motions briefs submitted by SIPDH; and iv) the joinder of the eight petitions that gave rise to this case. C.2.1. Alleged inadequate analysis by the Inter-American Commission The State argued that the Commission did not carry out an accurate, thorough, 70. objective and serious analysis; reached unreasonable, illogical, unfounded and unproven conclusions; provided false, incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate information; did not present individualized evidence of the alleged violations; and incurred in contradictions (supra para. 61 letters c, d, e and f). The Court finds that the State’s arguments constitute a disagreement with the Commission’s criteria in its respective Admissibility and Merits Reports, which is not a reason to analyze the Commission’s previous actions. During the proceedings before the Court, the State had procedural opportunities to exercise its right of defense and to challenge or reject the facts submitted to the consideration of the Court. 82 Therefore, the State’s allegations should be examined in the analysis of the merits of the case and not as a preliminary objection. 71. With regard to the Admissibility Report’s possible prejudgment of Law 8837, “before it had even entered into force” (supra para. 61 d), the Court recalls that “the considerations Cf. Control of due process in the exercise of the powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Articles 41 and 44 to 51 of the American Convention 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, this operative paragraph, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 37. 77 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 Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016. Series C No. 327, para. 28 78 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra, para. 66, and Case Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 39. 79 Cf. Case of Cayara v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 63, and Case of the Dismissed Workers of PetroPerú v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, Para. 51. 80 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra, para. 66, and Case Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 29. 81 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 6 August 2008. Series C No. 184, Para. 42, and Case Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 29. 82 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 32. 76 27