treaties outside the inter-American system or declare that they have been violated, and also its obligation to abstain from imposing on the State, by way of the interpretation of the Convention, supposed obligations that are derived, arise from or have their source in norms outside the system. Lastly, the State indicated that Article 8(2) of the Convention is only applicable to criminal cases and the Court may not extend the protection of Article 8(2) to non-criminal cases, via its case law. 35. The Commission stated that the references to UNHCR documentation in the Merits Report had different objectives: several of the “letters” issued by this agency constitute documentary evidence that supports the Commission’s determination of the facts and, as such, were subject to adversarial proceedings and were not analyzed from a legal point of view, so that it is not appropriate to make a determination under the concept of competence ratione materiae. Regarding the directives or other UNHCR documents, the Commission clarified that these documents were cited for reference purposes, within other sources used by the Commission to interpret the scope and content of the obligations established by the Convention, so that the State’s position constitutes a disagreement with its interpretation of the Convention itself and, as such, corresponds to a matter relating to the merits of the case. 36. The representatives indicated that the State’s allegation should be rejected because the critique on which it is based – inapplicability of a complementary or additional source of international law – is an issue that cannot be raised by means of an objection, and because it is incompatible with the Court’s criteria on the constitution of the international corpus juris. 37. In its final written arguments, the State indicated that it was “satisfied with the Commission’s explanation that the said UNHCR documents were cited ‘for reference purposes’ in order to interpret the rights contained in the American Convention.” It added that “the disagreement about the impact that the said documents may have on the interpretation of convention-based rights will be dealt with during the merits of the matter,” clarifying that “the citing of UNHCR documents in the development of its arguments does not mean a recognition that these documents are binding for the State or that the Court may apply them in these proceedings.” Considerations of the Court 38. First, the Court points out that several of the letters issued by UNHCR, which the State referred to its arguments, constitute part of the documentary evidence that supports factual determinations made by the Commission, regarding which the State has had every possibility of exercising its right of defense, and this must be analyzed when examining the merits. 39. Second, regarding other documents issued by UNHCR with its interpretation of the international normative applicable to recognition of refugee status, the Court notes that they were cited in the Merits Report, among other sources, in order to interpret the meaning and scope of the obligations established by the American Convention. The Court notes that the State has indicated that its assertion constitutes a disagreement with the impact that the said documents or instruments may have on the interpretation of the convention-based rights (supra para. 37), so that there is no dispute that this “disagreement” naturally corresponds to a matter relating to the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court finds that the State’s assertion is not a matter for a preliminary objection, so that it is inadmissible. E. Legality in the exercise of the attributes of the Inter-American Commission Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 40. The State argued that the Commission violated Article 46(b) of the Convention by admitting the original individual petition ten months after the denial of the request for refugee 14