9 20. The presumed victim’s representative indicated that “[i]t would appear that there is confusion on the part of the Bolivian State when it argues that the representatives are claiming that the Court […] should rule on the torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that I.V. did indeed suffer in Peru before moving to Bolivia where she was granted refugee status based precisely on the persecution and human rights violations that she had suffered in the neighboring country.” She added that, the events that took place in Peru were not part of the case, and that her arguments in relation to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention “refer to violations that I.V. suffered in Bolivian territory, as of July 1, 2000; violations [that were allegedly] perpetrated by a medical team of Bolivian public servants and that took place in a Bolivian public hospital.” In this regard, the representative clarified that “[a]ll the arguments that [she had submitted] on the violations of I.V.’s rights related to acts, omissions and a lack of diligence of the Bolivian, and not the Peruvian, public entities, public servants (doctors) and agents of justice, and they took place on Bolivian soil.” Lastly, the representative asked the Court to reject this preliminary objection. A.2 Considerations of the Court 21. Regarding the representative’s arguments in relation to the possible violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention, their purpose is for the Court to rule on whether the tubal ligation procedure performed on I.V. in a public hospital of the Plurinational State of Bolivia constituted an act or torture or, at least, cruel or inhuman treatment. The Court notes that, in this case, the representative has not argued possible violations of the American Convention that took place in Peru, a country that is not a defendant in this case. Therefore, the Court affirms its jurisdiction ratione loci to hear this case, because the act that gave rise to the alleged international responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights recognized in the American Convention and other applicable treaties, consisting in the tubal ligation procedure, took place in Bolivia. In addition, the Court notes that the determination of whether this act constituted an act or torture or cruel or inhuman treatment is a matter to be elucidated when examining the merits of the matter. Based on the foregoing, this objection is rejected. B. Objection concerning the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representative 22. The State filed the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies based on Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. Regarding the cassation procedure, it indicated that, under domestic law, this is the ordinary remedy established by the Bolivian criminal procedure to contest rulings delivered by the Superior Courts of Justice that are contrary to preceding rulings by other Superior Courts of Justice or by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court; the only requirement is that it must cite a contradictory precedent. The State indicated that this procedure would be “adequate and effective in this case, because […] it is admissible to contest rulings delivered by the Superior Courts of Justice or the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in order for the Supreme Court of Justice to hand down a final judgment based on the applicable legal doctrine, that can annul the ruling that was the reason for the procedure and order the delivery of a new judgment.” In addition, it indicated that this remedy should have been filed before the delivery of Ruling No. 514/2006 of August 23, 2006, which confirmed the extinction of the criminal action owing to the passage of time. 23. Regarding the application for constitutional amparo, the State argued that, according to article 19 of the applicable Constitution, I.V. could have filed the application for constitutional amparo, which was admissible “against wrongful acts or undue omissions of officials or private individuals that restrict or suppress, or threaten to restrict or suppress the rights and guarantees of the individual recognized by the Constitution and the law.” Regarding the effectiveness and appropriateness of the