set forth by the Commission in its Admissibility Report are prima facie legal assessments and, therefore, merely constitute a preliminary analysis” 83 of the characterization it makes to establish possible violations. In this regard, the Court reiterates that “the Commission must necessarily conduct this preliminary analysis in order to determine whether or not the objections of failure to exhaust domestic are justified. To understand it otherwise would mean that the Commission could not rule, at the admissibility stage, on the reasons for declaring a petition admissible or inadmissible and would deprive the rule of Article 46(2) of the Convention of its effet utile, since in any of the hypotheses contained therein the Commission must carry out a prior analysis in order to justify its decision.” 84 Consequently, the Court dismisses this aspect of the preliminary objection. C.2.2. Alleged incomplete submission of the file by the Commission 72. The State argued that the Commission did not comply with Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure because when it submitted the case it did not present all the documentation included in the case file, specifically the briefs submitted by the State after the issuance of the Merits Report (supra para. 61 letters f and g). In its brief of observations on the preliminary objections, the Commission explained that the failure to submit information was due to an involuntary error in the process of digitalizing the information; consequently, it sent said information to the Court as an annex to this brief. Subsequently, the Commission forwarded the same documents as helpful evidence requested by the Court. 85 In this regard, the State pointed out in its observations to said documents that their submission by the Commission remained incomplete. Consequently, it forwarded those documents on February 15, 2017, together with its final written arguments. 86 The Court confirms that the documentation sent by the Commission and the State was forwarded to the parties and the Commission so that they could present any observations they considered pertinent. It should also be noted that the missing documentation was made known to the parties and to the State itself at all times, and therefore no prejudice to the latter may be inferred. Consequently, the Court dismisses this aspect of the preliminary objection. However, the Court will analyze the State's arguments on possible compliance with the recommendations contained in the Commission's Merits Report in the chapter on the merits of the case and, eventually, in the chapter on reparations. C.2.3. Two pleadings and motions briefs submitted by SIPDH 73. The State argued that the common intervenor SIPDH submitted two pleadings and motions briefs (supra para. 61 letter h) in violation of procedure, abuse of the system, and in breach of the right of defense and procedural balance of the parties. Indeed, this Court confirms that on June 1, 2015, the common intervenor SIPDH submitted two pleadings and motions briefs, the first concerning five alleged victims, 87 and the second concerning six alleged victims. 88 In response, the Secretariat of the Court, in a note dated July 28, 2015, Cf. Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 43. Cf. Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 43. 85 In a note of the Secretariat of February 10, 2017, the Court asked the Commission to submit three briefs filed by the State in the proceeding before it, namely: the briefs of the State dated March 9 and May 12, 2009, and June 9, 2011. 86 The State submitted together with its brief of final arguments, the briefs submitted in the processing before the Inter-American Commission that are not part of the file presented by the Commission, namely: a) Brief of June 18, 2014, b) Brief of June 25, 2014, c) Brief of September 19, 2014, d) Brief of September 23, 2014, e) Brief of November 11, 2014, f) Brief of November 17, 2014, and g) Brief of December 2, 2014. 87 The group of five alleged victims are Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Arturo Fallas Zúñiga and Carlos Manuel González. 88 The group of six alleged victims are Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz, Miguel Antonio Valverde Montoya, Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, Luis Archbold Jay, Miguel Ángel Mora Calvo and Damas Vega Atencio. 83 84 28