has shown evidence of progress, it is not possible to conclude that such compliance was total or substantial,” a matter that the State learned of through the submission of the case. It alleged that this has adversely affected its right of defense, as Chile only had the opportunity to know whether or not the State’s actions were satisfactory for the Commission, when the contentious case was already underway before the Court.9 19. The State also argued that its right of defense was violated by the application of the “iura novit curia” principle, owing to the inclusion of Articles 9 and 25(1) of the Convention in the Merits Report, despite the fact that these articles were not included in the Admissibility Report or in the arguments of the parties. Consequently, the State did not have the procedural opportunity to refer to these arguments in previous phases. It pointed out that the Commission, not being a jurisdictional body, overstepped its jurisdiction by considering that rights not included by the petitioners were violated, and that there is no express provision allowing it to do so. 20. The representatives argued that all the ‘‘illegalities’’ that the State attributes to the Commission are erroneous interpretations of the current regulations. They considered that the Commission fulfilled its duty to provide due justification when submitting the case and that the State’s claim differs substantially from the position of the Commission and the petitioner, which is a matter for discussion on the merits. They argued that there is no proof of any serious error prejudicial to the State’s right of defense and that the Court is being asked to carry out a control of legality in the abstract. With respect to the reparations, they pointed out that these have not been complied with10 and that, in any case, any discussion in this regard is a matter that corresponds to the merits. Therefore, they asked the Court to dismiss this preliminary objection. 21. Regarding the first issue raised, the Commission argued that the State had an opportunity to exercise its right of defense throughout the processing of the case prior to the issuance of the Merits Report, and has not proven any error in this regard. The Commission 9 Regarding the Commission’s recommendations, the State explained: a) on the first recommendation, it reiterated that Mr. Baraona does not have an effective criminal conviction for the facts described in the Merits Report. Therefore, the recommendation lacks merit; b) regarding the second recommendation: it indicated that the Commission limited itself to observing that the victim did not receive any compensation. It considered that this recommendation is not appropriate, since its factual basis is the conviction imposed by the Puerto Montt Court of Guarantee, which was annulled. Therefore, there is no damage to be repaired; c) regarding the third recommendation: it specified that the current 2018 Draft Criminal Code crystallizes the concept of the "doctrine of legitimate criticism", regulated by national law in the second paragraph of Article 29 of Law No. 19,733. The draft bill that will soon be submitted to the National Congress for discussion would be subject to an examination and weighing of interests that may exist on a case-by-case basis, which is necessary to guarantee the right to protection of honor and dignity recognized in Article 11 of the Convention. The State has made efforts, which are still ongoing, to bring domestic criminal law into line with Inter-American standards on freedom of expression; d) regarding the fourth recommendation: it pointed out that it was not included by the Commission as a recommendation in the Merits Report. It asked the Court not to rule on the considerations of the Commission related to this recommendation, and e) on the fifth recommendation: it pointed out that the Commission omitted to refer to the information provided by the State. On June 16, 2020, by resolution of the Plenary of the Supreme Court, together with the dismissal of the criminal case, it expressed its willingness to disclose and circulate the Merits Report No. 52/19 within the Judiciary. On December 2, 2020 and by resolution of the Plenary of the Supreme Court, the Judiciary disseminated the aforementioned Merits Report, which was made available to the general public via the website of the Judiciary and through its social media networks as well as in the video released by the Judicial Branch to disseminate the Merits Report. In addition, the Judiciary reported that the Judicial Academy, the body in charge of continuous training of judicial officials, offers courses on human rights issues. The State considered that this recommendation has, essentially, been fully complied with. 10 In this regard, they argued that the dismissal of the criminal case against Carlos Baraona cannot be considered as an annulment of the proceeding, since a record of the charges against him continues to exist and there is no order from the Judicial Branch to annul the criminal case from start to finish. They added that the State has made no attempt to compensate the victim for the harm caused to his psychological and personal integrity, and thus it has not complied with the reparations. Finally, there has been not change to the domestic criminal legislation. 7