objections pleadings that are or could be such based exclusively on their content and purpose—that is, if sustained, they would prevent the continuation of the proceeding or a ruling on the merits. 6 The Court has repeatedly found that preliminary objections raise issues related to a case’s admissibility or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a case or an aspect of it, based on the person in question, the subject matter, the time, or the place. 7 Therefore, if in analyzing the State's arguments it is necessary to consider the merits, they lose their preliminary nature and cannot be considered as preliminary objections. 8 18. In this case, the Court notes that the State's argument is that the alleged violations were remedied before the domestic legal system. However, a decision on this matter concerns the merits of the judgment and the determination of possible reparations, insofar as it involves weighing whether the State effectively remedied the alleged violations. The Court consequently dismisses the preliminary objection. B. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to the alleged violations of the principles of jurisdiction, suitability, and judicial independence B.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 19. The State filed this objection with respect to the representatives’ allegations that the State's conduct violated the principles of jurisdiction, suitability, and judicial independence (i) due to the composition of the Supreme Court of Justice of Corrientes (hereinafter STJC) in rendering judgment 302 of 2000 and (ii) because the judge who ruled on the amparo in the lower court did not meet the requirements of suitability and impartiality. 20. The State argues that Mr. Boleso did not file any remedy objecting to the composition of the STJC when it issued judgment 302 of 2000. Specifically, he did not seek the recusal any of the judges who were part of it. Regarding the objections to the judge who ruled in the amparo case in the lower court, it emphasized that at no time during the international proceedings were his suitability and impartiality questioned, nor were arguments lodged against him other than disagreements with his judgment. The judge’s recusal was not sought, nor were remedies brought against any of the decisions to appoint him, swear him in, or assign him the writ of amparo. 21. The Commission emphasized that the facts called into question by the State are the outcome of the development of a matter duly admitted by the Commission. In addition, it argued that all the information was duly sent to the State so that it could present its observations in due time and form. They were subsequently considered in the Merits Report. In that sense, if it thought the arguments on judicial independence, impartiality, and jurisdiction were strong enough to stand on their own, the objection of failure to exhaust remedies should have been raised when it was notified of the petition. However, the State never raised this objection, nor did it demonstrate the suitability of the remedies that it claims should have been exhausted. It therefore argued that the preliminary objection should be rejected. Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 35, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 8, 2022. Series C No. 471, para. 24. 6 7 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment dated February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 32, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 24. 8 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 24. 6