12 and c) systematize and publish all the documents regarding the military operations against the Guerrilha do Araguaia. As such, the Commission requested that the Court dismiss this preliminary objection. 24. The representatives affirmed the autonomy of the Commission to evaluate the compliance with the recommendations of its reports and to decide on whether to submit the case to the Court. The reasons for the submission cannot be the objective of a preliminary objection, and Brazil did not argue any error on behalf of the Commission that could be a detriment to the right to defense. On the other hand, the State intends to apply one of the conditions of the actions of domestic law to the present case, which defines a procedural legal interest as “the need demonstrated by the party in the sense of obtaining the jurisdictional authority to guarantee the effectiveness of rights [and] avoid the continuance of harm suffered.” The State intends to not analyze the merits of the case, under the argument that the eventual requirements issued by a judgment of the Court will already be underway via actions implemented in the domestic forum. They expressed that the State’s arguments do not concern the jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of the case, but rather the measures of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives. Therefore, the arguments posed by Brazil refer to “a question closely linked to an examination of the effectiveness of said measures,” and as a consequence, do not constitute a preliminary objection. 25. Likewise, the representatives expressed that the measures adopted by Brazil are insufficient, and also, one of them is contrary to the interests of the next of kin. According to the representatives, “important controversies still exist regarding the facts complained of […] and those recognized by the State[, which] extend to those [debated] rights and the effectiveness of the measures adopted by the State in order to provide justice, [access to] the truth, prevent future violations, and compensate the next of kin of the [alleged] disappeared victims in the present case.” 2. The Court’s considerations 26. The Court notes that under the same concept of lack of procedural legal interest, the State referred in reality to two different assumptions: a) one related to the actions of the Inter-American Commission regarding the State’s report in response to the Report on the Merits No. 91/08, and b) another related to the measures of reparation adopted by Brazil, which, it is alleged, attend to the wishes of the Commission and representatives. 27. Regarding the decision of the Inter-American Commission to submit the case to the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court has affirmed that the assessment made by the Commission regarding whether to send the case to the Court is an attribution that is solely and autonomously of the Commission, and as a consequence the reasons it had for sending it cannot be subject to a preliminary objection. Nevertheless, what can be subject to a preliminary objection, is the omission or violation of all or some of the procedural steps enshrined in Article 50 and 51 of the Convention, in a way that provokes procedural imbalance26 or a serious error that affects the right to defense of a party to the case before the Court.27 The party that affirms the existence of a serious error must demonstrate 26 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, Preliminary Objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 31. 27 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 66; Case of Escher et al. v. Brasil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs.