13 exercising its competence is based,4 without this necessarily supposing a review of the proceedings before the Commission, unless there has been a grave error that violates the State’s right of defense. In the instant case, the State has not demonstrated how this action of the Commission prejudiced it during the proceedings before that organ of protection. 67. Notwithstanding the above, once the Commission is given specific information regarding alleged human rights violations, it is the Commission that determines the procedure through which this information should be channeled, within the sphere of its extensive mandate, established in both the Charter of the Organization of American States and the American Convention, for the promotion and protection of such rights. 68. Based on the above findings, the Court rejects subparagraph (a) of the second preliminary objection filed by the State. b) The alleged undue consideration of alleged victims 69. The State alleged that the Commission had unduly considered as alleged victims some of the 257 persons who are currently employed in the Congress of the Republic of Peru and others who, having collected their social benefits, are attempting to achieve reinstatement in their posts. 70. The Court observes that, in these international proceedings, determination of the effects of some of the alleged victims having returned to work in the institution from which they had allegedly been dismissed, and also the validity of their claims for reinstatement, correspond to considerations that belong to the stages on merits and, possibly, reparations. In other words, these alleged facts and claims do not constitute reasons or assumptions that can limit the Court’s competence to formally consider as alleged victims those persons who may be in the situation indicated by the State. Consequently, the relevance of these facts must be determined and assessed at the stages of merits and, if applicable, reparations. 71. Hence, the arguments contain in subparagraph (b) of the second preliminary objection filed by the State do not constitute a defense of this type, and must therefore be rejected. THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Objection of lack of legitimacy to act” The State’s arguments 72. The State alleged that the Inter-American Commission did not take into account, as stipulated in Article 33 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, that 41 people considered victims in the application have not granted powers of attorney to be represented before the international jurisdiction. Hence, the State asked the Court to 4 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 3, para. 121; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico . Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 59, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters . Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 132.