5 III. Case Law 1. 34. [. . .] The Court must, likewise, verify whether the essential procedural guidelines of the protection system set forth in the Convention have been followed. Within these general criteria, the Court shall examine the procedural issues submitted to it, in order to determine whether the procedures followed in the instant case contain flaws that would demand refusal in limine to examine the merits of the case. (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 34; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 39; and, Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 37.) 2. 37. Article 46(1) of the Convention lists the prerequisites for the admission of a petition [by the Commission] [. . .] (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra 1, para. 37; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra 1, para. 42; and, Godínez Cruz Case, supra 1, para. 40.) 3. 39. There is nothing in this procedure that requires an express declaration of admissibility, either at the Secretariat stage or later, when the Commission itself is involved. In requesting information from a government and processing a petition, the admissibility thereof is accepted in principle, provided that the Commission, upon being apprised of the action taken by the Secretariat and deciding to pursue the case (Arts. 34(3), 35 and 36 of the Regulations of the Commission), does not expressly declare it to be inadmissible (Art. 48(1)(c) of the Convention). (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra 1, para. 39; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra 1, para. 44; and, Godínez Cruz Case, supra 1, para. 42.) 4. 45. [. . .] the Commission enjoys discretionary, but by no means arbitrary, powers to decide in each case [. . .] (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra 1, para. 45; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra 1, para. 50; and, Godínez Cruz Case, supra 1, para. 48.) 5. 29. [. . .] In exercising these powers, the Court is not bound by what the Commission may have previously decided; rather, its authority to render judgment is in no way restricted. The Court does not act as a court of review, of appeal or other similar court in its dealings with the Commission. Its power to examine and review all actions and decisions of the Commission derives from its character as sole judicial organ in matters concerning the Convention. This not only affords greater protection to the human rights guaranteed by the Convention, but it also assures the States Parties that have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court that the provisions of the Convention will be strictly observed. (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra 1, para. 29; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra 1, para. 34; and, Godínez Cruz Case, supra 1, para. 32.) IV. Conclusions and Vote