had already been evaluated at the appropriate procedural moment (the Merits report) and that the State could have requested additional time to comply with the recommendations, a situation that did not occur in this case. It also indicated that the said information did not specify clearly how each recommendation had been complied with or, in particular, any progress in the domestic investigations and the rectification of the shortcomings noted in the case. It indicated that the submission of the case required an analysis of the entire case file, and it was not viable to divide up the aspects of the case submitted to the Court into “recommendations complied with” and “recommendations that have not been complied with.” The representatives did not present any arguments in this regard. “Failure by the Commission to comply with the requirements for the submission of the case established in Article 35(1)(f)” 28. The State contested the inclusion in the proceedings of the expert opinions of Federico Andreu Guzmán and Michael Reed, provided to this Court in other cases concerning Colombia, considering that they were limited to the specific circumstances of those cases. Similarly, the State indicated that part of the expert opinion of Javier Ciurlizza should not be admitted “because it has no relationship or interest for inter-American public order.” 29. The Commission observed that the expert opinions offered when submitting the case to the Court met the regulatory requirement of being related to aspects of inter-American public order. The representatives did not present arguments on this point. “Non-compliance of the motions, arguments and evidence brief with the regulatory requirements” 30. The State argued that, failing to respect the provisions of Article 40(a) of the Rules of Procedure, the representatives had presented a series of facts and claims that bore no relationship to the litis of the case and that the Court should therefore reject them. Moreover, the Court should also declare inadmissible those facts that could not be included in the factual framework submitted to the Court in the Merits report. 31. The Commission observed that the State’s allegations correspond to the merits of the matter and indicated that the information provided by the representatives merely complemented and developed the factual presumptions on which the processing of this case was based. Lastly, it indicated that the representatives have broad autonomy to request the measures of reparation they consider pertinent. 32. The representatives alleged that the only function of the facts referred to in the motions and arguments brief is to provide context to the events and facts that occurred during and after Operation Genesis, abiding by the factual framework established by the Commission. They stressed that the purpose of their arguments was to explain in greater detail that the crime committed against Marino López was a crime against humanity and, also, that clarifying and reinforcing a context does not mean that the Court must rule on new facts or on persons who are not in the universe of victims established by the Commission. B. Considerations of the Court 33. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are a mechanism whereby a State seeks, in a preliminary manner, to prevent the analysis of the merits of a disputed matter and, to this end, it may file an objection to the admissibility of a case or to the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any of its aspects, due either to the person, subject matter, time or place, provided that the said claims are of a preliminary nature.21 If these claims cannot be 21 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 25. 12