one another. They argued that the intent of the admissibility stage was to examine the formal aspects, without which the Commission would be unable to give an opinion on the matter brought before it; because it is a preliminary examination, the Commission’s decisions on the possible existence of a violation do not set limits on its ultimate decisions concerning the merits or the possibility for the Court to judge the case. They also agreed that, once the admissibility report has been issued, this stage of the proceedings has ended, and the Commission should not give further consideration to admissibility arguments that the parties may lodge subsequently. By contrast, the arguments on the facts that had taken place and the rights violated pertained to the merits. 58. The representatives also held that the right to defense for both parties had been broadly respected, given that the arguments on violation of the right to personal integrity of the family members had been presented for the first time on April 22, 2008, and the State had been given at least five opportunities over the course of three years to submit its reply, but during this time, it had filed no comments on the subject. The representatives therefore believed that the State could not “claim to justify its own negligence in the proceedings […] due to alleged procedural flaws that never existed.” The representatives also addressed the Commission’s application of the iura novit curia principle, recalling that it was soundly backed by international jurisprudence and that both the Commission and the Court were empowered to apply it, so long as they respected the rights of the parties, as in the instant case. They further argued that the Commission itself could have decided on its own motion to include more individuals if, availing itself of its powers, it found that they should receive protection. They cautioned, moreover, that, according to the Court’s case law, the alleged victims should be identified in the Commission’s Report on the Merits, as in fact had occurred in this case. For these reasons, they held that the State had not demonstrated that the Commission had injured its right to defense by committing a serious error when it asserted the right to personal integrity for the family members of the alleged victims in the instant case. To the contrary, the representatives said that the arguments had actually addressed disagreements with the Commission’s conclusions, and therefore asked the Court to deny the State’s preliminary objection. Considerations of the Court 59. It should be recalled, first of all, that when a preliminary objection questions the InterAmerican Commission’s procedures, the Court is empowered to exercise review of the legality of Commission actions, so long as one of the parties offers well-founded claims that a serious error has breached its right to defense (supra para. 37). Therefore, in keeping with the Court’s own consistent case law, the party making the claim must convincingly demonstrate the damage suffered. In this regard, a complaint or difference of opinion in relation to the actions of the Inter-American Commission is not sufficient (supra para. 38). 60. The Court will reply to the State’s arguments on estoppel derived from the Commission’s admissibility stage, recalling its own view that the conditions for admissibility of a petition (Articles 44 to 46 of the American Convention) stand as a guarantee to ensure that the parties can exercise the right to defense in the procedure. 43 It is worth remembering that, in cases where the Commission handles the admissibility separately from the merits, the admissibility stage is bound by the requirements given in Articles 44 to 46 of the Convention. The text does offer certain exceptions, as in Article 48(1)(c), under which the Commission can, after admitting the petition, “declare the petition or communication inadmissible or out of order, based on subsequent information or evidence.” Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, supra, para. 27, and Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 49. 43