66 The arguments of the Commission 150. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Commission indicated that: a) It confirms that the purpose of the instant case is for the Court to decide whether Peru is responsible for the violation of Article 21, 25 and 26 of the Convention, in relation to the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, owing to the facts described in the application filed by the Commission. The specific plea in the application was prepared on the basis of the facts established in the report on merits drawn up by the Commission in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention. The proceeding before the Court should be circumscribed to the limits of the report on merits and the application filed before the Court; b) The petitioners did not allege the violation of Article 8 of the Convention, because Peru had transferred the assignation of jurisdiction to hear the proceedings concerning the pension regime of State civil servants regulated by Decree Law No. 20530 to the transitory corporative public law courts, in either the petition of February 1, 1998, or its expansion of May 25 that year. Consequently, this allegation was not part of the procedure before the Inter-American Commission; therefore, the State did not submit arguments in that respect, and the Commission did not rule on the matter; c) The principle that, when submitting a case to the Court, the Commission or the State Parties should determine the juridical content of the proceeding – that is, the facts to be proved by the parties and examined by the Court, and also the rights that the Court must decide whether they have been violated – derives from Article 61 of the Convention. “The substance of the proceeding before the Court and the limits within which the Court must decide are established by the Commission or possibly the State”; d) The legal and factual presumption that allows the State to exercise effectively its right to defense is that the application filed before the Court should contain substantially the same legal and factual conclusions as the report drawn up by the Commission, in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention. “Should it be accepted that the Court’s jurisdiction can extend beyond the facts that were the object of the procedure before the ICHR and the articles that the Commission found had been violated in its Article 50 report and in its application, legal certainty, procedural equity and congruence would be jeopardized”; e) The Court’s practice has consisted in indicating that the Commission’s report or its application constitute the limits to the claims of the case. These limits to the Court’s latitude for decision “have not been modified by the recent regulatory reforms [which grant] autonomous representation to the petitioners.” The Court’s Rules of Procedure clearly state that the proceeding is initiated by the filing of the application by the Commission, which should contain, inter alia, the claims, a statement of the facts, the legal arguments and the pertinent conclusions. This signifies that the application filed by the Commission establishes the limits to the substance of the proceeding;