9 considerations are of the nature of a preliminary objection – that is, they contest the admissibility of the petition or the Court’s competence to hear the case or any of its aspects – then, it must be decided as such.11 18. In this case, the Court points out that the State’s arguments, (a) review of legality with regard to the Commission’s report and (b) failure to exhaust domestic remedies, relate to the Commission’s alleged failure to comply with the admissibility requirements established in Articles 46(1)(a) and (b) of the Convention. Accordingly, and pursuant to its consistent case law, the Court rejects both preliminary objections because they were not submitted at the proper procedural opportunity; that is, during the admissibility procedure before the Commission. 12 Regarding allegation (d) the Commission’s lack of competence to assume a fourth instance role, the Court notes that the State’s request does not seek to contest the admissibility of the case by this Court, and does not allege that its right to defend itself has been violated owing to supposed irregularities committed during the procedure before the Commission; rather it is an argument relating to the merits of the matter and, therefore, it will be decided in the corresponding section (infra para. 97). Also, with regard to the State’s argument (f) undue inclusion of presumed victims, the Court concludes that, based on the positions of the parties, the dispute has ended in this regard. 19. The Court will now analyze the State’s arguments (c) inclusion of Article 16 in the Merits Report, and (e) delimitation of the legal dispute. 1. Inclusion of Article 16 of the Convention in the Merits Report 20. The Court reiterates that, regarding the Commission’s inclusion in the Merits Report of rights that were not indicated previously in the Admissibility Report, neither in the American Convention nor in the Inter-American Commission’s Rules of Procedure is there a rule that states that the Admissibility Report must establish all the rights that have presumably been violated. 13 In this regard, Articles 4614 and 4715 of the American Convention merely establish the requirements for declaring a petition admissible or inadmissible, but do not impose on the Commission the obligation to determine the rights that will be the purpose of the procedure. In Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 25, 2017. Series C No. 334, para. 18. 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 21. 12 Cf. Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 52. 13 Article 46 of the Convention establishes that: “1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: (a) that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law; (b) that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment; (c) that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement, and (d) that, in the case of Article 44, the petition contains the name, nationality, profession, domicile, and signature of the person or persons or of the legal representative of the entity lodging the petition. 2. The provisions of paragraphs 1.a and 1.b of this article shall not be applicable when: (a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them, or (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.” 14 Article 47 of the Convention establishes that: “The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 if: (a) any of the requirements indicated in Article 46 has not been met; (b) the petition or communication does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention; (c) the statements of the petitioner or of the state indicate that the petition or communication is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order, or (d) the petition or communication is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” 15