13 exhausted the appropriate remedy under criminal law to repair the alleged violation, because it sought to clarify the facts and, if applicable, obtain justice. 44. Furthermore, with regard to the State’s claims concerning the “fourth instance formula” (supra para. 39), the Court considers it opportune to recall, as it has repeatedly indicated in its case law, that clarification of whether a State has violated its international obligations owing to the actions of its judicial organs may require the Court to examine the respective domestic proceedings in order to establish their compatibility with the American Convention, which is not the same, evidently, as determining individual criminal responsibilities. In light of the above, the domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole. The function of the Court is to determine whether the proceedings, taken as a whole, were in conformity with the Convention.28 This examination corresponds to the merits of the matter and will be examined in the respective chapter. The Court therefore rejects this preliminary objection. C.3) Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the right to freedom of association 45. The State claimed that the representatives “did not mention the violation of Article 16 of the American Convention [in the petition they submitted to the Commission;] therefore, the exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to the alleged violation of the right to freedom of association was not discussed during the admissibility stage. The inclusion of this Article occurred [in the] Report on Admissibility, and Brazil had not been able to comment on it. The State affirmed that if there had been evidence of a restriction of freedom of association the representatives “could have filed a mandado de segurança to safeguard this right, or […] included [the said] violation among the grounds for the mandado de segurança that was filed.” Consequently, the State was unable to decide the supposed violation of the right to freedom of association in its domestic jurisdiction. 46. The Commission did not present additional claims in relation to the inclusion of Article 16 of the Convention in its Admissibility Report and the exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to the supposed violation of that right. According to this report, the Commission observed that it had adopted the report “strictly respecting the adversarial principle” and that, in its answer, the State had not claimed that this decision was based on erroneous information or that it was the result of a process in which the parties did not act with equal arms or that there had been a violation of the right to defense. Accordingly, the admissibility decision adopted by the Commission should be considered final. 47. The representatives repeated their argument that “the Commission and the Court have the prerogative to introduce new elements, at any moment of the processing of the proceedings, by including new Articles of the Convention to be examined, [in application] of the iura novit curia principle.” * * * 48. The Court observes that Article 46(1) of the American Convention establishes the requirements for a petition to be admitted by the Inter-American Commission, and Article 28 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes the elements that the petition should contain when it is presented. Neither Article requires the petitioner to specify the Articles they consider violated. Similarly, Article 32(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in 28 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222; Case of Ríos et al., supra note 18, para. 54, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 65.