status and the deportation, without the petitioners proving an impediment to lodging the petition within the six-month time limit. The State mentioned that the petitioners had not filed an application for amparo “with the same right and promptness with which they filed the application for habeas corpus,” and that they could have filed this through representatives. In its final written arguments, the State indicated that the Court should analyze whether the remedies of amparo and habeas corpus were appropriate and effective to protect the supposed violation of due process and, in this sense, these arguments “must be analyzed together with the merits.” It added that the said remedies were effective, and therefore the Court should declare “not only that there has been no violation of judicial protection, but also that it cannot rule on violations of due process, owing to the principle of subsidiarity,” which is part of interAmerican public order and “could not be disregarded by the Court, even when States tacitly renounce filing preliminary objections.” The Commission considered that the State’s assertion was time-barred and the representatives also argued that it was inadmissible and unfounded. Considerations of the Court 41. The Court notes that, among its assertions, the State confused, on the one hand, the Commission’s alleged failure to comply with Article 46 of the Convention and, on the other, a supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies by the members of the Pacheco Tineo family. Since the State has desisted from its assertions as regards preliminary objections (supra paras. 14 and 40), the Court considers that it is not required to review matters that the Commission has already processed and decided in this case.32 The other arguments of the State relate to issues that should be analyzed, where pertinent, in the respective chapter of the merits; hence, the Court finds that the State’s assertion is inadmissible. V. EVIDENCE 42. The Court will now examine and assess the probative elements provided to the case file, whether these are documents, statements or expert opinions, in accordance with the pertinent regulations33 and its consistent case law,34 abiding by the principles of sound judicial discretion and taking into account the whole body of evidence and the arguments presented during the proceedings. A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 43. The Court has received documents presented by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State. The Court has also received the affidavits prepared by three presumed victims, namely: (1) Juana Guadalupe Pacheco Tineo, (2) Juan Ricardo Pacheco 32 When an action of the Commission in relation to proceedings before it is called into question, this Court has maintained that the Inter-American Commission has autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate as established in the American Convention. Although the Court may control the legality of the actions of the Commission in matters it is hearing, it does not necessarily have to review the proceedings conducted before the Commission, unless one of the parties submits a well-founded claim that there has been a serious error that violated its right of defense; and this must be demonstrated effectively, because a mere complaint or difference of opinions in relation to the actions of the Commission is insufficient. Cf. Control of Legality in the Exercise of the Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (arts. 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC19/05 of November 28, 2005. Series A No. 19, first and third operative paragraphs, 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. 33 Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 34 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 51, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 28 15