Considerations of the Court 28. When an action by the Commission in relation to the proceedings before it is alleged as a preliminary objection, this Court has maintained that the Inter-American Commission has autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate as established by the American Convention and, in particular, in the exercise of its functions in the proceedings relating to the processing of individual petitions established in Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention. Nevertheless, in matters that it is considering, the Court is empowered to control the legality of the Commission’s actions. 26 This does not necessarily entail revising the proceedings carried out before the latter, unless one of the parties argues, with justification, that there has been a grave error that violates its right of defense. 27 In addition, the Court must ensure a fair balance between the protection of human rights, which is the ultimate purpose of the system, and the legal certainty and procedural balance that ensure the stability and reliability of the international protection. 28 29. Article 50(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[i]f a settlement is not reached, the Commission shall, within the time limit established by its Statute, draw up a report setting forth the facts and stating its conclusions.” Article 23(2) of the Commission’s Statute stipulates that “[i]f the friendly settlement referred to in Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention is not reached, the Commission shall draft, within 180 days, the report required by Article 50 of the Convention.” Likewise, regarding the friendly settlement procedure, the relevant provisions of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure approved in 1980, 2000 and 2009 29 established that the Commission could terminate its intervention in the friendly settlement procedure if it found that the matter was not susceptible to such a settlement, or if one of the parties did not consent to its implementation, decided not to continue it, or did not show willingness to reach a friendly settlement based on respect for human rights. 30 The Commission must assess the specific circumstances in each case, taking into account these parameters to determine that a friendly settlement will not be reached and to proceed to draw up the merits report observing the said time frame. 30. When analyzing all the above-mentioned regulations under the Convention, the Statute and the Rules of Procedure regarding the procedural moment for the Commission to issue the merits report, the Court finds that the most relevant, in terms of the State’s right of defense and legal certainty, is that the Commission issue this report if the matter has not been settled by the parties, and that it refrain from issuing it if there is a possibility that a friendly settlement will be reached, as well as until the State has been given the opportunity to comply with its obligations in relation to the alleged violations attributed to it, and the 26 Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-19/05 of November 28, 2005. Series A No. 19, first and third operative paragraphs, and Case of Grande v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 231, para. 45. 27 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 42, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 25, para. 22. 28 Cf. Case of Cayara v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 63; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 42, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 70. 29 The Court notes that these three Rules of Procedure have been applicable to the processing of this case before the Commission. 30 Cf. Article 45(7) of the 1980 Rules of Procedure, Article 41(2) and 41(4) of the 2000 Rules of Procedure, and Article 40(2) and 40(4) of the 2009 Rules of Procedure. 12