on Human Rights on June 26, 2017.72 That communication was sent after the issue of Admissibility Report No. 29/17 of March 18, 2017. Therefore, the Court considers that the preliminary objection filed by the State is inadmissible. B. The Commission’s alleged failure to assess the progress made in complying with the Merits Report B.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 22. The State alleged that the Commission had not complied with the provisions of Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, because it had failed to indicate that the State had forwarded a report on April 3, 2019, which “contained information on the specific actions taken to expedite the recommendations made in the Merits Report.” Therefore, it argued that “the Commission had not complied with the provisions of Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure which establish the requirements for the presentation of a case.” The representatives argued that “the possible failure to comply with Article 35(c) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure does not constitute, per se, an obstacle to the admissibility of the case” and that, anyway, “El Salvador has not presented any argument to substantiate how the supposed failure to comply with this provision might have affected its defense.” The Commission argued that “the decision to submit a case to the Court forms part of the Commission’s sphere of autonomy as established in Article 51 of the American Convention and is taken in strict compliance with Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.” The Commission also argued that: (i) in April 2019, the State presented a report on compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report and on April 24, 2019, the Commission granted it a three-month extension to move forward in complying with the Merits Report, but when this time frame expired, the State failed to request another extension, and (ii) although the Commission appreciated the State’s report of April 2019, this “did not demonstrate substantive progress in complying with the recommendations of the Merits Report”. B.2 Considerations of the Court 23. The Court observes that, when submitting this case, the Commission indicated that it had no “information that any substantive progress has been made in complying with the recommendations of the Merits Report.” The President of the Court considered that, when submitted the case, the Commission had met the requirements stipulated in Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and, consequently, required the Secretariat to notify the submission of the case. Similarly, the Court considers that, when indicating in the letter submitting the case that it had no “information that any substantive progress has been made in complying with the recommendations of the Merits Report,” the Commission had met the requirements of Article 35(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. Based on these considerations, the Court rejects this preliminary objection.73 The State argued that the judgment convicting Manuela became final in August 2008, and was in effect until April 30, 2010, “however, the petition was lodged before [the] Commission on March 21, 2012, almost four years after the sentence had become final and almost two years after Manuela’s death.” The State’s report of June 26, 2017 (evidence file, folio 611). 72 Cf. Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2020. Series C No. 409, para. 26. 73 13