damage was sufficient and whether any acts or omissions occurred that violated the guarantees of access to justice and that could generate the State’s international responsibility. On this basis, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. F. Alleged failure to abide by the Convention owing to the Inter-American Commission’s publication of the Merits Report F.1. Arguments of the State, observations of the Commission and of the representatives 84. The State indicated that the Commission had published the complete text of preliminary Merits Report No. 71/2015 of October 28, 2015, on its website before submitting the case to the Court. The State considered that this circumstances violated Article 51 of the Convention, because the Convention authorized the Commission to issue a final report and eventually publish this, or to submit a case to the Court’s jurisdiction. It also indicated that the Commission was not authorized to publish this report before submitting the case to the Court. Therefore, the State asked that the Court declare that the Commission had violated Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention and that it should remove the said report from its website. 85. The Commission noted that the State’s allegation did not constitute a preliminary objection because it did not refer to matters of competence, or to the admissibility requirements established in the Convention. It also argued that the Merits Report issue under Article 50 of the American Convention was preliminary and confidential in nature. When the Commission opted for one of the options indicated in Article 51, the report was no longer preliminary and confidential. In addition, the publication of the report on its website was the Commission’s consistent practice and did not infringe any provision of the Convention or the Rules of Procedure, as declared in recent judgments with regard to Brazil. Consequently, the Commission asked the Court to reiterate its considerations on this point in previous cases and to reject this preliminary objection. 86. The representatives indicated that the preliminary objection filed by the State was contradictory because it required the Court to determine a violation of an international human rights treaty that prejudiced it, disregarding the fact that it was the State itself that signed international human rights treaties, thereby acquiring the obligation to ensure the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms to every person subject to its jurisdiction. They also asserted that the argument submitted did not constitute a preliminary objection and should therefore be rejected. 87. Notwithstanding the foregoing, they argued that it was necessary that the State substantiate that the Commission’s action constituted a grave error and prejudiced its right of defense. F.2. Considerations of the Court 88. The Court notes that the State’s arguments are identical to those presented in its preliminary objection in the cases of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers, Favela Nova Brasilia and the Xucuru Indigenous People. 40 In the judgments in these cases, the Court made a detailed analysis of the State’s arguments and concluded that the State had not proved its allegation that the respective Merits Report had been published in a way that differed from the way described by the Commission or contrary to the provisions of the American Cf. Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil, paras. 23 to 27; Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, paras. 24 to 28, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 346, para. 24. 40 19