with the content and purpose of the petitioner’s initial claim.” In this regard, the State argued that, “although it is reasonable to infer that questions could arise from the general content of the petitioner’s description of what happened in the context of the facts relating to the search and subsequent criminal proceedings, […] that does not appear to have been the petitioner’s intention. This is because, from reading his petition, it is clear that [Mr.] Grande finds himself a victim of the alleged violation of Articles 8(2) and 10 of the Convention which, in his opinion, was constituted in the context of his claim for damages that was rejected by the Federal Administrative Appellate Chamber.” 52. Furthermore, in the said brief of November 7, 2002 the State emphasized that although the intention of the petition was to seek the declaration of the alleged responsibility of the State for the consequences of a proceeding based on evidence that was later rejected, this does not authorize such facts to be evaluated in light of the Convention and/or […] the compatibility of the facts relating to the search and subsequent proceedings with the obligations assumed by the State, [because] the claim would be time-barred, and would therefore be inadmissible.” The State added that “it seems clear that […] the provisions of Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention would apply to the alleged incompatibility of the search and the criminal proceedings with the State’s obligations under the [American] Declaration and the Convention.” c) Report on Merits No. 109/09 53. The Commission’s Report on Merits No. 109/09 of November 10, 2009, merely indicated that “the State’s arguments concerning the admissibility of the case […] are inappropriate at this procedural stage. Regarding the State’s arguments, the Commission indicated that the admissibility requirements were duly analyzed in the chapter of the Admissibility Report on exhaustion of domestic remedies and the time frame for the presentation of the petition.” Consequently, the Commission indicated that “it did not refer to those arguments in the […] report.” 54. From the above, the Court observes that, in its Admissibility Report No. 3/02, invoking the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission did in fact modify the purpose of Mr. Grande’s petition, which referred to the alleged violations that arose during the administrative proceedings (supra paras. 2 and 47). Specifically, the Commission included the alleged violation of reasonable time in the criminal proceedings and the analysis of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It also rejected the petitioner’s arguments regarding the alleged violations of Articles 8(2) and 10 of the Convention, in relation to the claim for compensation processed by the administrative law jurisdiction, regarding which the State had presented its arguments at the admissibility stage of the petition. Thus, it was at that time that the State, procedurally, became aware of the scope of the purpose of the petition in the instant case. 55. Responding to the Commission’s new approach and following the Admissibility Report, the State submitted several arguments to contest the Commission’s competence to examine the new purpose of the petition. Among these, in application of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, it indicated the petitioner’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the criminal proceedings, as well as the “time-barred presentation of the claim concerning the alleged violations in relation to the criminal proceedings.” However, in its Report on Merits No. 109/09, the Commission indicated 13