there is a commonality of parties, subject-matter and legal basis. It also establishes that after consulting with the Commission and the parties, the Presidency may order that two or more cases be heard jointly. The same article establishes the Court’s authority to divide or split the cases submitted to its consideration; therefore, this Court can split and process separately the cases submitted jointly in the Merits Report by the Commission, since the Commission’s decision to join the cases is not binding on it. In this sense, the Court may split or join cases when it deems it convenient or at the procedural opportunity it deems appropriate, in order to guarantee the right of the alleged victims to have access to inter-American justice, or when there are other relevant reasons for adopting such a decision. 77. In the instant case, the Court notes that in the Admissibility Report the Commission joined eight different petitions filed by a total of seventeen alleged victims. This involved significant complexities in terms of determining the facts of the case and examining the rights invoked, and in turn generated an unprecedented delay in its processing before the Court. However, for reasons of procedural economy and in order to guarantee as quickly and effectively as possible the right of the alleged victims to have access to inter-American justice, as well as to avoid further prejudice in terms of time, this Court did not consider it advisable to split the case, and will therefore decide all the issues raised in this judgment jointly. 78. Third, the State alleged that there were procedural irregularities during the proceedings before the Commission, that the case was allegedly complex and exceptional, with cumbersome processing, procedural imbalance and dissimilar circumstances, that there was no analysis or individualized evidence of the alleged violations declared in the eight cases, and that it was difficult to make use of procedural mechanisms and preliminary objections, since the alleged victims kept adding factual and legal arguments before and after the Admissibility Report, expanding the scope of the litigation (supra para.61). In this regard, the Court considers that the State had the opportunity to defend itself and to express its position whenever it considered it appropriate during the proceedings before the Commission; 93 however, before this Court it merely expressed its disagreement with the decisions taken by 3. After consulting the Agents, Delegates, and alleged victims or their representatives, the Presidency may order that the proceedings of two or more cases be joined. 4. The Court may, when it deems it appropriate, order that provisional measures applications be joined when the subject-matter or the parties are identical. If such is the case, the other provisions of this Article shall be applicable. 5. The Court may join proceedings for the monitoring of compliance of two or more judgments issued with respect to a single State if it considers that the decisions set out in each judgment are closely related. In those circumstances, the victims in those cases or their representatives shall designate a common intervener in accordance with Article 25 of these Rules of Procedure. 93 During the respective admissibility proceedings before the Commission, the State submitted the following briefs: 1) seven briefs in the case Manfred Amrhein Pinto and other, on February 8, 2005, June 21, 2005, September 22, 2005, February 5, 2007, May 4, 2007, May 21, 2010 and August 12, 2010 (evidence file, folios 15206, 16114, 16595, 16626, 16636, 16648, 16688); 2) seven briefs in the case of Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal on March 9, 2009, August 6, 2009, September 24, 2009, April 29, 2010, September 15, 2010, January 17, 2011 and June 14, 2011 (evidence file, folios 12555, 13109, 12648, 13639, 13458, 13330 and 43951); 3) two briefs in the case of Damas Vega Atencio on October 30, 2010 and June 14, 2011 (evidence file, folios 6992 and 6719); 4) five briefs in the case of Miguel Ángel Mora Calvo on December 8, 2008, April 22, 2009, August 10, 2009, September 15, 2010 and January 25, 2011 (evidence file, folios 6309, 6177, 6147, 6027 and 6005); 5) six briefs in the case of Manuel Hernández Quesada on December 9, 2008, May 12, 2009, September 24, 2009, January 25, 2010, September 15, 2010 and February 18, 2011 (evidence file folios 5728, 5615, 5590, 5556 and 5417); 6) ten briefs in the case of Jorge Alberto Martínez Meléndez on September 2, 2008, December 3, 2008, April 13, 2009, June 1, 2009, August 6, 2009, September 24, 2009, April 14, 2010, May 6, 2010, October 20, 2010 and June 1, 2011 (evidence file, folios 3969, 3947, 3919, 3847, 3819, 3808, 3776, 3771, 3756 and 3201); 7) five briefs in the case of Guillermo Rodríguez Silva and Martín Rojas Hernández on July 24, 2007, December 21, 2007, July 2, 2008, December 8, 2008 and May 19, 2009 (evidence file, folios 4171, 4132, 4084, 4032 and 4010); 8) six briefs in the case of Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz and others on December 8, 2008, May 12, 2009, November 20, 2009, June 24, 2010, February 15, 2011 and June 9, 2011 (evidence file, folios 5387, 5364, 5380, 5013 and 4912); and 9) Report of the State of April 1, 2013 (evidence file, folios 18478 and ff). During the merits stage, the State submitted a brief on April 1, 2013 (evidence file, folios 18478 and 18479). 30