attached an annex to its brief. The Commission, submitted its final written observations on May 1, 2023. On instructions from the President of the Court, the representatives and the Commission were asked to submit any considerations they deemed pertinent regarding the annexed documentation sent by the State. On May 8, 2023, the representatives submitted their observations. They argued that the annexed documentation "should not have been admitted because it was not submitted at the proper procedural moment" (infra para. 27). On the same date, the Commission indicated that it had no observations. 12. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated on this judgment on May 22, 2023. III JURISDICTION 13. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention because the State of Argentina ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on September 5, 1984, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A. Alleged inadmissibility of the petition due to lack of subject matter A.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 14. The State recalled that international jurisdiction can only be invoked in cases where a possible violation has not been resolved before the domestic legal system. It held that in this case, the violation of the reasonable period of time standard was duly addressed, and that Mr. Boleso’s claims were paid out with the delivery of a sum equivalent to USD 22,334 (twenty-two thousand three hundred and thirty-four United States dollars). It also argued that the alleged violation of the right to property had ceased, inasmuch as Mr. Boleso was paid the total amount due according to the settlement that he himself presented, which included interest on the principle originally claimed. Therefore, and by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, it asked that the case not proceed to the analysis stage. 15. The Commission indicated that the State’s pleading does not constitute a preliminary objection. It emphasized that in order for a State to not be declared responsible based on an argument of complementarity, the State must recognize the international violation, and there must be an evaluation of whether it ceased and whether the State made full reparation for its consequences. However, in its opinion, there is no evidence that the State has acknowledged the violation of the guarantee of a reasonable period of time or that it has reported the adoption of specific measures to pay compensation. It also indicated that the actions the State may have taken are relevant to the analysis of the merits of the case and the possible reparations that may be ordered, but have no effect on the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction. 16. The representatives indicated that the State's arguments refer to issues that correspond to the merits of the case. A.2 Considerations of the Court 17. The Court recalls that, pursuant to its case law, it will only consider as preliminary 5