9 20. The Court notes that the State pointed out in its final arguments that there is still pending, at the domestic level, the “process of execution” of the judgments in question. This Tribunal notes that said position was not expressly put forward by the State as a preliminary objection of incompetence in terms of an alleged lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Therefore, it is not up to the Tribunal to issue a ruling in that regard but to repeat its case-law,12 according to which, the objection asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings. As a consequence, the State should have raised said preliminary objection, if that was the case, at the appropriate procedural moment, but it did not. Nevertheless, when analyzing the merits of the controversy, the Tribunal shall assess the position put forward by the State in relation to the alleged “process of execution” that is pending at the domestic level. IV COMPETENCE 21. The Court has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given the fact that Perú has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978 and has accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. V EVIDENCE 22. Based on the provisions of Article 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the case-law of the Court as to evidence and assessment thereof,13 the Court shall examine and assess the evidence contained in the case file. A) Documentary, Testimonial and Experts’ Opinion Evidence 23. At the request of the Presidency,14 the Tribunal received the testimonies and the statements for informative purposes, rendered before notary public (affidavits), of the following people: a) b) c) d) e) Cosme Marino Vargas Salas; Juan José Medina Morán; César Daniel Collantes Sora; Julio César Borrero Briceño, and Dicha Laura Arias Laureano. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 11, para. 88; Case of Bayarri V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C Nº. 187, para. 16; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 14. 13 Cf. Case of the “White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C, Nº 37, para. 76; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 36; and Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 91. 14 Order issued by the President of the Court, supra note 8.