informed the parties that “Article 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure does not provide for the submission of multiple pleadings and motions briefs by the same group of representatives.” However, following instructions from the Plenary of the Court, it stated that, “in order to safeguard the right of defense of the alleged victims, on this single occasion, the two aforementioned briefs will be considered as a set of pleadings. However, in the following procedural stages, the representatives should submit a single brief addressing the situations of both groups of alleged victims, so that their claims may be considered by the Court.” Taking into account that the submission of such briefs was already discussed and resolved by this Court, it is not appropriate to reopen this discussion. Therefore, the Court dismisses this aspect of the preliminary objection. C.2.4. Joinder of the eight petitions that gave rise to the case 74. First, regarding the argument of the Commission and the common interveners that the State did not object to the joinder of the eight petitions into one case in a timely manner, the Court observes that these petitions were processed separately by the Commission during their respective admissibility stages, and that was not until Admissibility Report 105/11 of July 22, 2011 that the Commission decided to join them into a single case, 89 without the parties being able to express their views on the matter until after that report had been issued. During the merits stage before the Commission, the State submitted a single brief dated April 1, 2013. Although in this brief the State did not expressly object to the joinder, the fact is that, under the heading “General Aspects,” it did express its general disagreement with the “lack of clarity” with which the facts of the case unrelated to the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention were admitted. 90 In addition, before this Court it has insisted on its position, following the same line of argument. Therefore, the Court considers that the State’s argument has been raised opportunely. 75. Secondly, with regard to the alleged unacceptable manner of the joinder of the case, Article 29(5) 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission contemplates the possibility for the Commission to join cases. On the one hand, the Court notes that said provision establishes broad criteria for the joinder of cases and, on the other hand, that the decision on the joinder of petitions may affect the petitioners’ right of access to justice and also affect the State’s right of defense in adversarial proceedings, as well as on the alleged violations of rights and even the examination of the facts of the joined cases. However, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure do not provide for the possibility of submitting the decision on the joinder of petitions to the prior consideration of the interested parties, so that they may express their possible objections, nor do they expressly allow for the parties to object to such decision, or establish how such objections will be decided, aspects that should be considered. 76. Article 30 92 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure regulates the joinder of cases, stating that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order the joinder of related cases when Cf. Admissibility Report No. 105/11, paras. 1, 4 and 13 (evidence file, folios 18246 and 18247 and 18249). Cf. Report of the State of April 1, 2013 (evidence file, folios 18478 and 18479). 91 Article 29(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission establishes: “If two or more petitions address similar facts, involve the same persons or reveal the same pattern of conduct, the Commission may join and process them together in the same file”. 92 Article 30 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights establishes that: 1. The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order the joinder of related cases when there is commonality of parties, subject-matter, and applicable law. 2. The Court may also order that the written or oral proceedings of several cases, including the introduction of declarants, proceed jointly. 89 90 29