16 * * 56. Fourth, the State maintained that the Commission should have declared the inadmissibility of the petition based on Article 47 of the American Convention. Among other consideration, Mexico indicated that: (i) the Commission unduly rejected the objections of failure to exhaust domestic remedies filed by the State, without examining the latter’s arguments seriously and in detail, but rather focusing on clarifying whether there was a way to contest the constitutionality of the electoral laws in Mexico without taking into consideration the Electoral Tribunal’s effective protection of the rights, and without having to exercise attributes relating to control of the constitutionality of the laws; (ii) the Commission prejudged and presupposed the existence of a right to register an independent candidacy and, also, that this inexistent right would only be exercised by declaring that the COFIPE was contrary to the Constitution and the American Convention, which, in turn, implied that this right derived from these instruments; and, in order to conclude unduly that the matter was admissible, it failed to refer to the time-barred nature of the alleged victim’s request to the IFE and affirmed that the only grounds for the refusal was the application of Article 175 of the COFIPE, among other inexact and erroneous affirmations; (iii) in any case, it is for the legislator to decide whether to incorporate the mechanism of the independent candidacy or another similar mechanism, as this cannot be created via judicial control of the constitutionality of the laws. Even if the Supreme Court had considered the amparo action filed by Mr. Castañeda Gutman admissible, this would not have led ipso facto to the legal creation of the mechanism of the independent candidate; and (iv) the Commission should at least have indicated which provision of the Convention establishes the right to register as an independent candidate in the elections because, if this right cannot be inferred from the Convention, the Commission is attempting to demand the existence of a special means of protection for an inexistent right. 57. The Commission argued that: (i) the State’s discontent with the processing of the case merely translates into disagreement with the way in which the Commission, in plenary session, interpreted the scope of Article 46 of the Convention. In this regard, the Court has indicated that the Commission, as an organ of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, has full autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate under the Convention; (ii) there is no regulatory or Convention-based provision that obliges the Commission to explain in detail the reasons why it considers that a petition complies with the requirements of admissibility. Admission does not require an express and formal act; nevertheless, the Commission examined thoroughly and explained in detail the reasons for which it decided to apply one of the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in its Report No. 113/06; (iii) the State seeks to return the proceedings to a precluded procedural stage, in which the Commission gave due consideration to the arguments of both parties on the admissibility of the matter; and (iv) the Court has indicated that there are no grounds for re-examining the Commission’s reasoning on admissibility that are compatible with the relevant provisions of the Convention. Based on the above, the Commission asked the Court to reject this preliminary objection. 58. The representatives did not add any observations to those submitted by the Commission. 59. The Court has already ruled on the Commission’s authority to defer the admissibility of a petition until the debate and decision on merits pursuant to its Rules of Procedure (supra para. 55). The Court also observes that, as can be seen from reading Report No. 113/06, the State’s arguments on the exception to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies were considered and decided by the Commission. The Court does not find any reasons to reexamine the Inter-American Commission’s reasoning when deciding on the admissibility of