IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 15. In the instant case, the State raised three preliminary objections, as follows: (a) ratione temporis jurisdiction of the Court; (b) ratione materiae jurisdiction of the Court; and (c) failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the request for reparations. Since the preliminary objections ratione temporis and ratione materiae are closely related, the Court will examine them together. A. Preliminary objections to lack of ratione temporis and ratione materiae jurisdiction A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 16. The State affirmed that the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the alleged violation of the rights to juridical personality, personal liberty, humane treatment, life, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. This, on the grounds that domestic courts have acted based on the idea that the alleged victim was murdered on July 17, 1980 and that the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the matter in the cumulative Suits for Damages, pursued by the Public Prosecutor and its interveners against Luis García Meza Tejada and his collaborators (hereinafter also "Suits for Damages"), by judgment of April 15, 1993. The State argued that, since both events predate Bolivia's recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, the Court lacks temporal jurisdiction to rule on the alleged violations of the alleged victim's human rights. The State also argued that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to interpret and apply the American Convention and the ICPPT, because the facts of this case relate to a homicide and not to a Forced Disappearance. 17. For their part, the Commission and the representative argued that this preliminary objection should be rejected, since the classification of the facts – whether as Forced Disappearance or as unlawful death – is a matter underlying an analysis of the merits of the case and not for the jurisdiction stage. A.2. Considerations of the Court 18. The State argued that the Court lacks jurisdiction to apply the American Convention and the ICPPT to the instant case because Mr. Flores Bedregal was allegedly murdered on July 17, 1980, years before Bolivia recognized the Court's contentious jurisdiction and ratified the ICPPT, respectively. The Commission and the representative alleged that the Court has jurisdiction to examine the case since the effects of the failure to clarify the fate of Mr. Flores Bedregal extended continuously to the present date, since it relates to a Forced Disappearance. 19. The Court notes that there is no dispute between the parties as to the date on which the acts of violence that initially affected the alleged victim occurred within the framework of the seizure of the Bolivian Workers' Center during the 1980 coup d'état, nor as to whether these particular facts occurred prior to the deposit of the optional clause by Bolivia on July 27, 1993. The dispute arises as to the classification and scope of the facts of July 17, 1980, and their effects over time; the State considers that Mr. Flores Bedregal's death was State, especially the principles of reciprocity, non-retroactivity, and judicial autonomy" (Note OEA/MI/262/93 of July 22, 1993). 7