4 May 17, 2007, during the thirtieth special session of the Court, which took place in Guatemala City, Guatemala.7 9. On May 15, 2007, the State remitted part of the helpful evidence requested by the President, and on June 6, 2007, the parties forwarded their respective briefs with final arguments. 10. On September 12 and 17, 2007, the State forwarded some documentation that had not been requested by the Court, and the Commission and the representatives alleged that it was time-barred. 11. On September 18 and 25, 2007, the President requested the representatives and the State to forward new helpful evidence8 which was forwarded to the Court within the allotted time. On October 9, 2007, Mr. Lapo submitted new documentation regarding the helpful evidence that the President had asked the representatives to provide. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 12. When submitting its answer to the application, the State filed two preliminary objections. They were: (a) “failure to comply with the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies,” and (b) lack of jurisdiction of the Court “based on the fourth level of jurisdiction formula.” The Court will proceed to examine these preliminary objections in the order in which they were filed. A) FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES 13. According to the State, the alleged victims failed to appeal the adverse habeas corpus decisions before the Constitutional Court; and they did not appeal the orders for remand in custody “pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure.” The State also indicated that “the appropriate channel available to remedy possible unlawful or arbitrary acts committed by the judge [who heard the case] was to file a civil action for damages to claim compensation for judicial error.” 14. The Commission requested, inter alia, that this preliminary objection be rejected “because it was not filed at the appropriate moment before the Commission, and was clearly without grounds.” The representatives agreed with the Commission and also 7 There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Evelio Fernández Arévalos, Commissioner, Marió López and Lilly Ching, advisers; b) in representation of the alleged victims: Xavier Flores Aguirre; and (c) for the State: Salim Zaidán, Deputy Agent, and Gabriela Galeas, adviser. 8 The representatives were asked: (a) to forward the vouchers for the expenditure they claimed the alleged victims had incurred for costs and expenses; (b) to provide information on the amount of the equity investment or the number of shares that Mr. Chaparro possessed in the Plumavit company at the time of his detention and at the time the company was returned to him, and also the amount of the equity investment and the number of shares that the other partners or shareholders in the company held at the time of Mr. Chaparro’s arrest and when the company was returned to him, and (c) to advise whether Mr. Chaparro Álvarez had received the amount of US$10,444.77 (ten thousand four hundred and forty-four United States dollars and seventy-seven cents) when the factory was returned. The State was requested to submit: (a) the official exchange rates of the sucre with regard to the United States dollar from 1997 until the date on which the dollar began to be used as the country’s only currency; (b) Resolution No. 059-CD of December 19, 1999, issued by the Administrative Council of the National Council for the Control of Drugs and Narcotic Substances (hereinafter “CONSEP”), published in official gazette No. 14 of February 10, 2000, and (c) Resolution No. 13, published in official gazette No. 376 of July 13, 2004, with the replacement regulations for the collection of fees for deposit, custody and administration of property and assets seized, confiscated and impounded, and delivered to CONSEP, for violations of Act 108.