37. Argentina argued that the Commission’s delay affected its right of defense becasue: (i) it could have designed “a defensive strategy in an adequate temporal context,” and (ii) it prevented “the possibility of adopting early measures to find a friendly settlement to the matter” (supra para. Error! Reference source not found.), and also its right of defense was further violated owing to (iii) the absence of a response to these allegations in the Admissibility Report and the Merits Report. In this regard, the Court recalls that the admissibility of this type of argument depends on the State proving the specific harm caused to its right of defense in this case (supra para. 27). 38. In this regard, the Court considers that Argentina has not revealed the strategy that it was prevented from exercising owing to the passage of time. This Court notes that during the processing of the case before the Commission and before the Court, the State has had the opportunity to present its defense arguments, and has not advised this Court which aspect of this defense depended, from the point of view of time, on the immediacy of the facts or that the passage of the said initial time prevented it from obtaining any specific piece of evidence. Furthermore, the State has not revealed or offered any reason to explain how the possible initial harm to its right of defense was not rectified by the numerous opportunities subsequently provided to enable it to present its defense arguments. In addition, although the State argues that a more expeditious transmittal of the petition would have allowed it to offer a friendly settlement, the fact is that it had many opportunities to offer this while the petition was being processed before the Commission and, at no time during this procedure, did it mention that it sought this type of settlement, even when faced with the express willingness of the presumed victims who, on several occasions, requested a conciliation hearing. 46 To the contrary, the State expressly indicated that it did not wish to reach a friendly settlement in this case. 47 The State has not provided any evidence to prove that its position would have been different during the time the petition was at the initial review stage. Consequently, the Court considers that the State has not shown in what way the Commission’s conduct specifically affected or violated its right of defense during the proceedings before that organ. 39. Furthermore, the Court notes that the State did, in fact, presented this preliminary objection in its first brief in the proceedings before the Commission and that the latter did not respond to these arguments in either its Admissibility Report or its Merits Report. 48 In this regard, the Court recalls that, as of its first cases, it has recognized that the Convention does not require the Commission to take any explicit action in relation to the admission of a petition 49 and, consequently, does not regulate the contents of an Admissibility Report. Nevertheless, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in force at the time the Admissibility Report was issued did establish that a decision on admissibility should be issued, but did not specify what this should contain. 50 Also, while the American Convention expressly requires the 46 Cf. Brief of the representatives of August 20, 2008, in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission (file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 826), and brief of the representatives of September 9, 2008 in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission (file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 839). 47 Cf. The State’s brief of January 23, 2009, in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission (file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 1117). 48 Cf. The State’s brief of February 21, 2002, in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission (file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 659 to 665); Admissibility Report No. 39/08, Petition 56-98, Carlos and Pablo Mémoli v. Argentina, issued by the Inter-American Commission on July 23, 2008 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 779 to 790), and Merits Report No. 74/11, Case of 12,653, Carlos and Pablo Mémoli v. Argentina, July 20, 2011 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 1329 to 1351). 49 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 40, and Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 36. 50 Article 37 of the Commission’s 2006 Rules of Procedure established that: “1. Once it has considered the positions of the parties, the Commission shall make a decision on the admissibility of the matter. The reports on 17