that the briefs containing these statements were forwarded to the State57 during the admissibility stage before the Commission. 57. The Court further notes that the Inter-American Commission had full access to the court file after the Report on Admissibility was issued,58 when it was forwarded by the State, and therefore it was not until that time that the Commission had all the evidence to establish the specific facts of this case. 58. Regarding the arguments presented by the State, according to which the Court had already established in the judgment of the case of Grande v. Argentina that the application of the iura novit curia principle by the Commission would be inadmissible. The Court recalls that in that case, the preliminary objection of the violation of the State’s right to defend itself was admitted, “due to the change of the purpose of the petition in the Report on Admissibility and the subsequent application by the Commission of the procedural preclusion of the State's claims regarding the admissibility requirements in the Report on Merits, the Commission omitted verifying the eligibility requirement set out in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention regarding criminal proceedings,” 59 in other words, the requirement that the initial petition must be “lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation to his rights was notified of the final judgment.” In addition, this case included reference to facts that were outside the Court’s temporal jurisdiction and involved two different proceedings (one criminal and one administrative). Therefore, the Court finds no link between the ruling in the case cited by the State and the present case. 59. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State was aware of the facts supporting the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of Sebastián Furlan and his family from the outset of the proceedings before the Commission, and could therefore have expressed its position, had it considered it pertinent. In this sense, the Commission could apply the iura novit curia principle or consider another classification of the same facts, without this implying a violation of the State of Argentina’s right to defend itself. 60. Based on the foregoing, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection of violation of the right to defend itself in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission filed by the State of Argentina. IV JURISDICTION 61. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, under the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, given that Argentina is a State Party to the Convention60 since September 5, 1984 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that same date. 57 Communication of the Inter-American Commission of December 16, 2002 (file of appendices to the Report on Merits, volume IV, page 1830). 58 Communication of the Inter-American Commission of July 17, 2008 (file of appendices to the Report on Merits, volume III, page 1393) and Communication received from the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic before the OAS of February 23, 2009 (file of appendices to the Report on Merits, volume III, page 1315). 59 Cf. Case of Grande v. Argentina, para. 61 60 The Court has already referred to the reservation made by the State of Argentina to Article 21 of the American Convention (supra paras. 36 to 44). 19