12 62. The Inter-American Commission considered that the State’s argument relating to the characterization of the application was not in order, because: (a) The American Convention does not establish any limitation that would provide grounds for this argument. In this regard, the text and language of Article 48(1) of the Convention is particularly comprehensive and there is no reason to suppose that cases should be opened based only on documents entitled “petitions,” and (b) The opening of the case based on the request for precautionary measures does not harm the State’s right of defense. In this case the provisions of the Convention and the Rules of Procedure were applied and the right of defense and the adversarial principle were respected. Furthermore, the State was informed of the request on which the case was based, and submitted arguments and information with regard to it. 63. In relation to the argument concerning the “reinstatement of some victims,” the Commission considered that the alleged reinstatement does not prevent the Court from having competence, because this circumstance constitutes a finding on merits and the examination and consideration of its effects relate to the issue of reparations. The common intervenors’ arguments 64. The common intervenors requested the Court to reject the objection relating to alleged legal defects in the processing of the petitions that gave rise to the case and argued that precautionary measures and petitions are distinct within the framework of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. The former seek the avoidance of the irreparable violation of human rights rather than a ruling on merits, “consequently, granting them does not constitute prejudgment”; in contrast, the latter seek to sanction the State’s international responsibility for the violation of human rights. They also endorsed the Commission’s arguments. The Court’s findings a) The alleged denaturalizing of the formalities 65. The Court has verified that the petition presented by Mr. Fernández Saré in March 1998, on behalf of himself and 126 other dismissed employees reiterated the facts that formed the grounds for the request for precautionary measures that the same Mr. Fernández Saré and four other individuals had previously presented to the Commission and which had been rejected because the Commission considered that it did not comply with the requirements for requesting precautionary measures (supra paras. 5 to 8). 66. The Court has previously considered that the American Convention endows the Court with full jurisdiction over all matters relating to a case submitted to its consideration, including the procedural requirements on which the possibility of