with annexes. The Commission forwarded its final written observations on September 27, 2018. 13. Deliberation of this case. The Court began deliberating this judgment on November 20, 2019. III JURISDICTION 14. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention because Guatemala has been a State Party to the Convention since May 25, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 15. The State indicated that the domestic remedies had not been exhausted because “apart from the complaint filed one day after the disappearance of Alexander Yovany Gómez Virula, and subsequent testimonial statements, [no further] reliable information had been provided that would allow the perpetrators of the disappearance and subsequent death of Mr. Gómez Virula to be identified; thus causing the Public Prosecution Service to archive the case file.” It also indicated that none of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies were applicable. The Commission indicated that the preliminary objection was inadmissible because it was time-barred since it had not been filed during the admissibility stage. It indicated that, “to the contrary, [during that stage], the State advised that the case had been archived; [therefore,] the Commission considers that the preliminary objection filed before the Court by the State of Guatemala is inadmissible because it is time-barred.” The representatives agreed with the Commission. B. Considerations of the Court 16. The Court recalls that, in the case of a preliminary objection of this nature, the first aspect that must be determined is whether the objection was filed at the proper procedural moment.9 In the instant case, the Commission dealt with the admissibility and the merits of the case together, so that the relevant point is whether the State argued the failure to exhaust domestic remedies before the Commission before the latter ruled on the admissibility of the petition.10 The Court notes that, in a brief of June 16, 1997, which the State presented during the procedure before the Commission, it mentioned “that the investigation into the death of Alexander Yovany Gómez Virula continues and it is hoped that new evidence will be provided that leads to the identification and punishment of those responsible.”11 On November 30, 1999, the State indicated that “having consulted the prosecutor, it was determined that [during the investigation] it had not been possible to glean any information that could identify those responsible for the death of Mr. Gómez Virula, and the Public Prosecution Service has Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 26. 9 See, for example, Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 48. 10 11 67). Communication of the State dated June 13, 1997, signed by the Director of COPREDEH (evidence file, folio 5