the State violated substantive precepts of the Convention and, if applicable, set the consequences of said violations. 30. This Court highlights the importance of the Commission’s evaluation of compliance with its recommendations. It is useful for assessing whether the State has made appropriate progress to adequately make reparation to the individuals considered to be victims and, if applicable, for attempting to ensure that the violations declared by the Commission do not happen again. In addition, where appropriate, said evaluation allows the Commission to decide whether to refer the case to the Court or if that would not be appropriate or expedient in a particular case. In this regard, the applicable articles of the Convention, statutory laws, and regulations do not obligate the Commission to refer a case to this Court. 14 31. In the present case, the State presented information to the Commission after the Merits Report had been issued (supra footnote on page 3). That information described, first, training activities to prevent a recurrence of the events (in addition to recalling that it had modified the legal framework for preventive detention years before the merits decision of the Commission) and, second, attempts to locate Mr. Carranza in order to comply with the recommendation to make reparation for the damage the Commission found that he had suffered. Regarding this, the State communicated to the Commission that Mr. Carranza’s lawyer was willing to request an extension and, later, that the same lawyer had reported that Mr. Carranza had died. 32. Despite this, the Commission stated when it submitted the case to the Court that “it did not have concrete information on compliance with [its] recommendations” (supra para. 2). Given the above, it is necessary to emphasize that, in accordance with the above-mentioned articles, it is the responsibility of the Commission—not this Court—to determine whether the State has complied with the recommendations contained within the Merits Report and, in general, to determine the circumstances related to the actions taken after the communication of said decision. It is not, in principle, the Court's role to assess or review the views of the Commission in this regard. In this case, the State had the opportunity—after having been notified of the Merits Report—to present information to the Commission, and that information was assessed by the Commission. Thus, the Court does not observe a serious error that would affect the right of defense. 33. Based on the above, this Court rejects the preliminary objection. V EVIDENCE 14 The Rules of Procedure of the Commission, in the version that was current and in force when the Merits Report of the present case was issued, establishes in its Article 45(1) that if “the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the recommendations of the report approved in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention, it shall refer the case to the Court, unless there is a reasoned decision by an absolute majority of the members of the Commission to the contrary.” It follows from that article that it is possible for the Commission to decide not to refer a case to the Court. The second paragraph of the same article states that “[t]he Commission shall give fundamental consideration to obtaining justice in the particular case, based, among others, on the following factors: a. the position of the petitioner; b. the nature and seriousness of the violation; c. the need to develop or clarify the case law of the system; and d. the future effect of the decision within the legal systems of the Member States.” It is not the responsibility of this Court to assess such “elements” regarding a particular case. Nevertheless, the Court considers it evident that the fact that the only person the Commission considered a victim and beneficiary of its recommended measures has died is a circumstance that, at least a priori, appears relevant to the consideration of the possibility of “obtaining justice in the particular case.” 9