-11concerning the effectiveness of the domestic remedies in the chapter on Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention (infra paras. 169 to 212). 50. In relation to the so-called “second grounds,” regarding the Commission’s criteria for admitting the petitions submitted to it and processing them, and the reasonableness of the time allowed for it to adopt reports, the Court observes that this refers to the admissibility of a case before that body of the inter-American system. In other words, when the full competence of the Court has been acknowledged and the State has withdrawn the preliminary objection, a ruling in this respect is irrelevant as regards the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court considers that the State’s request to joinder these arguments to the merits of the case is inadmissible. * * * 51. With regard to the participation of the alleged victims’ next of kin and their representatives, the Commission made several requests concerning the reparations it considered admissible in the case as well as the following proposal: […] In keeping with the Court’s Rules of Procedure that grant autonomous representation to the individual, in this application, the Inter-American Commission will only set out the general principles regarding the reparations and costs it considers the Court should apply in this case. The Inter-American Commission understands that it corresponds to the next of kin of the victims and their representatives to specify their claims, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention and Article 23 and other relevant articles of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. If the next of kin of the [alleged] victim do not avail themselves of this right, the Commission requests the Court to grant it the procedural opportunity to quantify the respective claims. Additionally, the InterAmerican Commission indicates that it will inform the Court opportunely if it has any observations concerning the quantification of the claims of the next of kin of the victim or his representatives.5 52. In its answer to the application, the State expressed its opposition to the Commission's proposal as follows: In paragraph 88 of the application, the Commission is misinterpreting the American Convention […]. The Commission is trying to give the next of kin of the victims and their representatives a role that the Convention has not granted them. According to Article 61(1) of the Convention: “Only the States Parties and the Commission shall have the right to submit a case to the Court.” In other words, the States Parties and the Commission determine the scope of the claims that will be submitted to the Court for it to decide, either in the application, or in the answer to the application. The dispute is decided by the Commission and the States Parties. Consequently, the Commission’s proposal to delegate to the petitioners the definition of the claims with regard to reparations and, in particular, to request another procedural opportunity for quantifying them if the petitioners’ next of kin fail to do so, is not consistent with the provisions of the Convention. This paragraph of the application gives rise to procedural inequality for the State. According to the Rules of Procedure of the Convention [sic] only the Commission and the State, in their capacity as parties to the proceedings, have competence to submit their claims [Arts. 33 and 38 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure]. Thus, in the answer to the application, the State should declare whether it accepts the facts and the claims or whether it rejects them, and the Court can consider as accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been contested. This indicates 5 Cf. application lodged by the Inter-American Commission (merits file, tome I, pp. 34 and 35, folios 35 and 36).