13. The briefs with final arguments and observations were forwarded to the parties and to the Inter-American Commission. The President granted the representatives and the State a specific time frame to present any observations they deemed pertinent on the helpful evidence requested by the Court and the information and attachments sent by the representatives in relation to their claims for costs and expenses (supra paras. 11, 12 and 71). On October 21, 2011, the representatives presented their observations. The State did not submit observations. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 14. In its answering brief, the State filed five preliminary objections and, subsequently, desisted from one of them. 16 The other four preliminary objections refer to: 1. 2. 3. 4. “Inadmissibility of the application owing to failure to exhaust domestic remedies” “Inadmissibility of the application owing to the expiry of the time frame for the report under Article 50 of the Convention” “Partial inadmissibility of the application owing to the ‘fourth instance’ principle “Lack of competence ratione temporis of the Court” 4.A) “Lack of competence of the Inter-American Court ratione temporis to examine the alleged violations of the American Convention and of the Convention against Torture to the detriment of Mr. González Medina”; 4.B) “Lack of competence of the Inter-American Court ratione temporis to examine the alleged violations of the American Convention to the detriment of the members of the alleged victim’s family.” 15. The Court will analyze the admissibility of these preliminary objections in the order in which they were presented. A) “Inadmissibility of the application owing to failure to exhaust domestic remedies” Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 16. The State argued that the application was inadmissible owing to the failure to exhaust the domestic remedies available under Dominican law. It argued that it was impossible that Mr. González Medina’s family had exhausted the domestic remedies in just 35 days, which is the time that elapsed between his disappearance and the filing of the petition before the Inter-American Commission. In addition, it asserted that the exceptions contained in Article 46(2) of the Convention were not applicable because the petitioners could not argue the ineffectiveness of judicial remedies that had not been filed. The State argued that it had not waived, either explicitly or tacitly, the possibility of filing this preliminary objection, and affirmed that “it had always indicated, especially before the issue 16 In a brief presented on August 22, 2011, the State desisted from the preliminary objection of “Inadmissibility of the application owing to the time-barred seizure of the Inter-American Court.” The State indicated, inter alia, that it “apologized to the Inter-American Court, the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the alleged victims, and the family of the alleged victims for any inconvenience that the involuntary factual error committed by the State by filing this objection has caused them in these proceedings.” The Court admits this withdrawal of the preliminary objection, even though it had been filed in a brief containing other arguments that the Court has not admitted, considering them time barred (infra para. 70), to the extent that it does not prejudice the defense of the alleged victims, and that the filing of preliminary objections is one of the State’s procedural rights that it can waive at any moment of the proceedings. 8