24. As to the State’s first argument regarding the alleged violation of its right of defense, the Court notes that the Commission decided to submit the case to its jurisdiction “taking into account the will of the petitioner, as well the need to obtain justice and full reparation for the [alleged] victim.” The State had an opportunity to submit information after being notified of the Merits Report, which was evaluated by the Commission. In this regard, the Court notes that, upon submitting the instant case, the Commission referred to the State’s response on its compliance with the recommendations made in the Merits Report. In turn, the Presidency of the Court considered that, by submitting the case, the Commission complied with 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. The Court agrees with this assessment and considers that the Commission complied with the requirements of Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court concludes there has been no error that violates the State’s right of defense. 25. As for the State’s second argument concerning the inclusion of Articles 9 and 25(1) of the Convention in the Merits Report, the Court reiterates that there is no rule that stipulates that the Admissibility Report must establish all the rights allegedly violated.14 In this regard, Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention establish exclusively the criteria under which a petition may be declared admissible or inadmissible, but does not require the Commission to determine definitively which rights would be the subject of the proceedings. The rights specified in the Admissibility Report are the result of a preliminary examination of the petition that is currently underway, and therefore do not limit the possibility that other rights or articles that have allegedly been violated may be included in subsequent stages of the proceedings, as long as the State’s right of defense is respected within the factual framework of the case under analysis.15 26. The Court finds that in this case the State was aware of the facts that supported the inclusion of Articles 9 and 25(1) of the Convention when the initial petition was submitted to the Commission. Indeed, the inclusion of these conventional rights in the Merits Report is based on the application of Articles 416, 417 and 418 of the Criminal Code and Article 29 of Law No. 19.733 in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Baraona Bray, which was alleged in the initial petition. Consequently, the Commission could address the violation of these conventional rights in its Merits Report, without this implying a violation the State’s right to defense. 27. In conclusion, the Court finds that, in this particular case, there was no violation of the right of defense in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission in the terms alleged by the State, and therefore dismisses the preliminary objection. B. Objection of fourth instance B.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 28. The State argued that the purpose of the petition submitted to the Commission by Mr. Baraona is to force the institutions of the inter-American system to reassess the weighing of rights and interests that has already taken place at the domestic level, so that it may be replaced by a new decision adopted at the international level, this being a typical case of 14 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 52, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 20. 15 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 52, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 20. 9