68. The Court, taking into account that the Commission has acted in the exercise of powers set forth in the Rules of Procedure, and that there are no well-founded reasons to believe that the actions of the Commission could have been injurious to the the State’s right to defense, finds no grounds in the instant case on which to review the procedure before the Commission. 69. In view of these considerations, the Court denies the preliminary objection submitted by the State to review the legality of Report on the Merits No. 66/11 concerning the inclusion of alleged victims and certain human rights not cited in Admissibility Report 13/04. D. Fourth preliminary objection: “Objection on the grounds that the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights violated the Peruvian State’s right of defense;” Arguments by the State, the Commission, and the representatives 70. The State argued that the Commission’s decision on admissibility of the case was delivered after a period of only four months and 17 days from the time the State received notification of the petition. It held, in this regard, that admissibility decisions had been made more quickly in the instant case than in any other petitions against Peru from 2000 through 2012. The State argued that this had breached the principles of adversarial proceedings, procedural equality and legal certainty in the international process against it. It noted that the Commission had taken an average of 47.4 months, nearly four years, to draw its 66 admissibility decisions in cases against Peru from 2000 through 2012. The State also observed that the Commission’s admissibility decisions in 2004 regarding 14 other countries had taken an average of 24.5 months, and the admissibility decisions on the four petitions against Peru had taken an average of 32.5 months. It concluded that the Commission had taken only onefifth the time to adopt a position of admissibility of petitions for Peru that year than for the other countries of the region. 71. According to the State, the Commission had displayed “bias and lack of objectivity, and had twisted the system of rules for admissibility decisions.” It had deprived the State of the possibility to submit additional arguments on the admissibility of the petition, giving it only one opportunity to respond to matters of admissibility, despite the fact that two criminal proceedings were underway in the domestic courts. The petitioners, by contrast, had been able to submit their comments on the State’s response, and this was the only information the Commission had used to examine and settle the admissibility of the petition. The State argued that this had favored the petitioners. The State noted that, while it is debatable whether the Commission can be held to the same standard of impartiality as the Court because it is not a judiciary, but a quasi-judicial administrative body, it should at least remain objective. In the instant case, the Commission had made its decision even knowing that two criminal proceedings were underway in the domestic jurisdiction, one in the military courts, and the other in the ordinary courts, so that when it published Admissibility Report 13/04, there was as yet no final military judicial finding. It was only later that the military court decided to drop the case, but according to the State, the Commission had been willing to accept merely a preliminary decision from this military judicial body as sufficient grounds to decide without consulting back with the State on this point of admissibility. 72. In short, the State believed that its right to defense had been breached and hindered by the Commission’s conduct because it did not have enough time to examine the requirements of admissibility contained in the petition, nor had it been able to comment on the information submitted by the representatives of the alleged victims before the admissibility decision on the petition was made.