the Court “not to consider non-compliance with recommendations 4, 5, and 6 of […] Report No. 136/10 as grounds for submitting the case to its jurisdiction” and, consequently, “to reject and disallow the measures of reparation contained in subparagraphs (d), (e) and (f)” requested by the Commission, “because the said measures are currently being implemented by the State, invalidating a possible guilty verdict in this regard.” The State also argued that the Commission had failed to comply with the provisions of Article 35(1)(d) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure because it had not provided a copy of the report submitted by Colombia regarding to its compliance with the Commission’s recommendations, which forms part of the case file before the Commission. 37. The Commission referred to the State’s arguments regarding the requirements established in Article 35(1)(c) indicating, inter alia, that its recommendations “may have different characteristics”; thus, in the instant case, “the information available reveal[ed] progress in complying with some [of them] and lack of progress in complying with others.” According to the Commission, this “does not mean that it is procedurally viable to divide up or separate the aspects of the case that it presents to the Court based on criteria of “recommendations complied with” and “recommendations not complied with.” The Commission indicated that “[a]ccording to the American Convention, the Rules of Procedure of both organs of the system, and the practice of more than 20 years, when the Commission submits a case to the Inter-American Court, it submits it in its entirety, with the sole exception of the limitations that may arise from the Court’s temporal competence.” In addition, it indicated that when progress has been verified in compliance with some of the recommendations, “the Commission does not exclude any facts, legal consequences, or claims for reparations from a case it submits to the Court.” The Commission also argued that, although it was true that some of the recommendations called for compliance over time, “given that it had not received a request for an extension in keeping with the applicable regulatory requirements, and in view of the failure to comply with a large group of the recommendations, the Commission was not in a procedural position that would allow it to monitor […] the overall progress of all the recommendations for a longer period without relinquishing the possibility of submitting the case to the Court.” Moreover, regarding the failure to forward the State’s report of February 22, 2010, to the Court, the Commission indicated that this was due to “an inadvertent error,” but that the said report “[had been] referred to in the note transmitting the case and that, in any case, the Court now has the report ensuring that it, at this time, it has the entire case file.” Considerations of the Court 38. First, the Court considers that, even though Article 35(1)(c) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure requires the Commission to indicate the reasons that led it to submit the case to the Court and its observations on the defendant State’s response to the recommendations in the Merits Report, the Commission’s assessment of whether or not to submit a case to the Court must be the result of a collective exercise of an independent and autonomous nature continued complying with it.” The State mentioned that the fact that the Commission appreciated the information presented as “important steps in compliance” meant that it recognized that this recommendation could not be implemented immediately, and “invalidated the reasons” it had to present the case to the Court in relation to this recommendation. 27 Regarding the recommendation “to train the armed forces on the role played by journalists in a democracy, and on the right of journalists to cover freely and safely situations of public order and armed conflict,” the State referred to the nature of this recommendation that required compliance over time and reiterated that it had informed the Commission about the measures it had taken in this regard and provided updated information on progress in implementing this recommendation. It maintained that the Commission had not made any observations that would allow it to be understood how this recommendation had not been complied with. 15