the result of any action by the State.” 53. In this regard, the Commission argued that: (i) the possible review by the Court of the procedure before the Commission “should be made only in exceptional circumstances” and, in this specific case, the presumptions required to warrant such a review are not present; (ii) the Commission does not have a treaty-based obligation to issue a separate admissibility report; (iii) this case was processed under two different rules: the 1980 Regulations did not indicate the issue of a separate admissibility report, and the 2000 Rules of Procedure did indicate this, but retained the possibility of ruling jointly in certain cases; (iv) while the 1980 Regulations were in force, the State presented defenses relating to admissibility and merits, and while the 2000 Rules of Procedure were in force the State had the opportunity to submit its arguments on the merits as soon as the Commission advised it that it would issue a joint report, in other words, since 2004; (v) when the 2000 Rules of Procedure established the possibility of issuing separate reports, “it was never considered that the inexistence of separate reports could violate the State’s right of defense”; (vi) the State only contested the joinder of the admissibility and merits stages in 2010, and (vii) in response to the State’s concerns, the Commission informed it of the reasons for this procedural decision in its first subsequent communication; namely, in the Admissibility and Merits Report. B.2) Considerations of the Court 54. The control of legality of the procedure before the Commission is only applicable in those cases in which evidence is provided of the existence of a serious error that harms the State’s right to defense, justifying the inadmissibility of a case before this Court. 60 The Court recalls that, pursuant to the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission has autonomy and independence to exercise its mandate. 61 It is outside this Court’s competence to conduct a control of legality in the abstract – merely with a declarative purpose – of the processing of a case before the Commission. In this case, Colombia expressly waived the presentation of these arguments as a preliminary objection and, in the actual circumstances of the case, they would be incompatible with the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility. Therefore, the Court considers that this request by the State is not admissible. VII EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 55. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 6 and 7). The Court also received from the parties documents it had requested as helpful evidence under Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, the Court received the affidavits made by: the presumed victims Sandra Beltrán Hernández, Luz Dary Samper Bedoya, Héctor Beltrán, René Guarín Cortés, Cecilia Saturia Cabrera Guerra, María del Pilar Navarrete Urrea, Orlando Quijano, Jorge Eliécer Franco Pineda, Eduardo Matson Ospino, José Vicente Rubiano Galvis, Xiomara Urán Bidegain, María Consuelo Anzola Mora, Rosa Milena Cárdenas León, Raúl Lozano Castiblanco, Damaris Oviedo Bonilla, Deyamira Lizarazo, Deborah Anaya Esguerra, 60 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 66, and Case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections. Judgment of May 26, 2014. Series C No. 278, para. 102. 61 Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 to 51 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-19/05 of November 28, 2005. Series A No. 19, first operative paragraph, and Case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections. Judgment of May 26, 2014. Series C No. 278, para. 102. 24