9 C) THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Irregularities in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission 30. The State contended that various irregularities occurred during the proceedings before the Commission, including, inter alia, that the Commission allegedly: (i) gave the petitioners latitude to submit approximately eleven petitions over the course of the proceedings; (ii) allowed Mr. Padilla –the former Assistant Executive Secretary of the Commission- to act as advisor and counsel to petitioners; (iii) failed to give the State the opportunity to attend the 119th session of March, 2004, by not inviting the State in a timely manner; (iv) required the State to submit a second request for another public hearing on the matter because the Commission failed to respond to the first request; (v) failed to treat the State with respect during the 121st session of the Commission because only one Commissioner presided over the public hearing while a second member left the hearing after the beginning remarks; (vi) failed to send the meeting minutes or other information regarding the 119th session of the Commission to the State despite several requests to this effect, which led to Suriname’s lack of information during the 121st session and caused it to be disadvantaged, and (vii) failed to respond to the State’s submissions after the adoption of the Article 50 Report and therefore misled the State as to the submission of the application to the Court. The State further submitted that “[s]ince the Commission did not act properly when the petition was in process before it, this Court must remedy the situation and declare the Commission without jurisdiction to submit this particular case to the Court. [I]f the Commission is declared without jurisdiction to submit this petition/case to the Court because of the applicability of the fruits of a poisoned tree principle, the original petitioners lack standing to proceed in this case”. 31. In response, the Commission alleged that: (i) both parties had ample opportunity to address the Commission both orally and in writing and the State has not demonstrated how the Commission’s treatment was different or harmful to the State; (ii) the participation of the Commission’s former Assistant Executive Secretary in this case does not contravene the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, and no preferential treatment was afforded to Mr. Padilla; (iii) it gave due notice to the State concerning the hearing convened for the 119th period of sessions, in accordance with Article 62(4) of its Rules of Procedure, which allows for one month’s notice for hearings; (iv) the hearing requested by the State was convened at the first available opportunity after the State’s request; (v) in accordance with Article 65 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the President may form working groups for purposes of procedural economy, and furthermore, all hearings are recorded so as to inform the entire Commission about the events that transpired during the hearings; (vi) it has requested in its application that the Court call upon two experts heard at the Commission’s 119th period of sessions to allow the State an opportunity to hear and question their declarations, and (vii) it took full account of the information provided by the parties during the time period between the issuance of the Article 50 report and its determination that the case should be sent to the Court. In such a decision, the Commission considered its duties under Article 44(1) and 44(2) of its Rules of Procedures that contemplate whether the State has complied with the recommendations issued and to consider the views of the petitioner as well. The representatives supported the Commission’s arguments and views. 32. The Court has previously considered that it will review the proceedings before the Commission when an error may exist that infringes upon the State’s right of defense.24 In this case, it has not been demonstrated how the aforementioned Commission’s behavior has 24 Cf. Case of 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.