B. “Violation of the Argentine State’s right to defense during the examination of the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights” Arguments of the parties 41. Regarding the factual scenario in which the petitioner lodged the initial petition concerning the claim for damages under Articles 8(2) and 10 of the Convention, the State argued that it had duly exercised its defense concerning these facts, insofar as they referred to a petition relating to the results of an action filed under administrative law. It was “the […] Commission itself that, later, violating the State’s right to defense, […] change[d] the procedural purpose of the petition, focusing it on what had happened during the criminal proceedings.” Furthermore, the State indicated that, in its Report on Merits, the Commission “did not refer to the State’s arguments […] regarding the lack of coherence between the Admissibility Report and the facts described by the petitioner in his petition. Indeed, the Commission merely invoked estoppel with regard to the requirements for the admissibility of the petition.” Lastly, the State considered that it “was in a position of inequality, because it was unable to present the necessary defense against the facts that the petitioner had not cited – and which were therefore not part of the litigation – that the [Commission] had included in its Admissibility Report, and this violated the State’s right to defense.” 42. Regarding this preliminary objection, the representative did not make any specific observation, because he considered that the objection was addressed at the Commission’s actions during the proceedings concerning the petition’s admissibility. 43. For its part, the Commission indicated that “since the beginning of the proceedings [before it], Mr. Grande had indicated precisely the dates of the start and end of the criminal proceedings against him.” In any event, “from the briefs presented by the State before the decision on admissibility, it is clear that the Argentine State understood that the facts relating to the duration of the proceedings were part of the purpose of the case, as well as the possible violation of the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention.” The Commission “mentioned unofficially in its Admissibility Report that it would analyze the facts alleged in relation to the rights estblished in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in particular the guarantee of a reasonable time.” In this regard, the Commission mentioned that “it has been the consistent practice of the organs of the inter-American system to analyze the facts submitted to their consideration […] not limited to the legal provisions cited […], but rather incorporating those that are found to be relevant and applicable to the said facts. This practice is supported by the principle of iura novit curia.” Therefore, in its decision on admissibility the Commission defined the provisions of the Convention that could be relevant to the analysis of the merits of the case, in the exercise of its powers and based on the factual support of the petition and all the information received from both parties at the admissibility stage. Considerations of the Court 44. The Court observes that the State has repeatedly maintained that it could not exercise its right of defense in the admissibility proceedings concerning the petition, because it considered that the Commission changed the procedural purpose of the petition. Hence, the State contested the admissibility requirements, and the Commission has not assessed this. Based on the assertions of the State and the 10