Commission, in this case the Court finds it necessary to examine the proceedings followed before the Inter-American Commission. 45. This Court has held that “[w]hen a preliminary objection is filed that questions the actions of the Commission in relation to the proceedings before it, […] the InterAmerican Commission has autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate pursuant to the provisions of the American Convention and, particularly, in the exercise of its functions in the proceedings relating to individual petitions.9 Nevertheless, in matters that it is considering, the Court has the power to review the legality of the Commission’s actions,10 which does not necessarily mean revising the proceedings conducted before it.11 The Court reviews the proceedings before the Commission when one of the parties alleges justifiably that there has been an evident error or failure to observe the admissibility requirements for a petition, which violates the right of defense. 46. The Court, as a jurisdictional organ, will proceed to review the actions and decisions taken by the Commission in order to ensure the appropriateness of the admissibility requirements as well as the principles of adversarial proceedings, procedural balance, and legal certainty.12 a) Proceedings before the Inter-American Commission 47. First, the Court notes that, in the proceedings before the Commission, Mr. Grande’s petition of November 2, 1994, related to the decision of the Second Administrative Appellate Chamber that annulled the first instance judgment, rejecting his claim for compensation, and also to the complaint declared inadmissible by the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice (supra para. 2). These organs were named as the State authorities responsible for the alleged violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(2) (presumption of innocence) and 10 (right to compensation) of the American Convention.13 On June 15, 1995, the Commission began processing the petition, and forwarded the pertinent parts of the application to the State so that the State could make observations on it. 9 Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 to 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC19/05 of November 28, 2005. Series A No. 19, first operative paragraph; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 31, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 22. 10 Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 to 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC19/05, supra note 8, third operative paragraph; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 30, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 8, para. 22. 11 Cf. Case of the 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; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 31, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 8, para. 22. 12 Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 to 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC19/05, supra note 8, para. 27. 13 Cf. Initial petition of Mr. Grande lodged on November 2, 1994 (appendices to the application appendix 3, f. 501). 11