22. The representatives argued that the State's right to defense has not been violated because when it submitted its answering brief, it was able to give the arguments and evidence it considered pertinent to disprove a violation of Article 8 regarding judicial independence and impartiality. They indicated that although Mr. Boleso could have sought the recusal of the judges involved in the amparo proceedings, the State did not demonstrate that this was a suitable and effective remedy. B.2) Considerations of the Court 23. The Court recalls that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on an alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be filed during the admissibility stage of the case before the Commission. 9 Furthermore, this Court has found that in the case of supervening facts that merit a specific analysis, these objections must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. 10 24. In this case, Mr. Boleso alleged a violation of the principle of judicial independence in a brief dated June 29, 2001, subsequent to the Admissibility Report of September 24, 1998. In this regard, Mr. Boleso's brief argued that the judges comprising the court that issued Judgment 302 of August 8, 2000 “are no longer 'friends' of the administrative authority but ‘dependents’ appointed directly by it. [Thus,] the independence of this body—the STJ—is fictitious." 11 It also emphasized that Argentina is internationally obligated to ensure that every person is heard by an independent court. 12 The State learned of this brief before the Commission's Merits Report was approved and, to that extent, should have filed the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies during the merits stage so that it could be examined by the Commission in a timely manner. Because it failed to do so, the preliminary objection raised by the State is dismissed. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 25. The Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 6 and 7). As in other cases, this Court admits those documents presented at the proper procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure) 13 by the parties and the Commission, whose admissibility 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 18, 2022. Series C No. 475, para. 21. 10 Cf. Caso Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 50, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment dated February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448, para. 26. 11 468). Brief filed by Héctor Hugo Boleso with the Inter-American Commission on June 29, 2001 (evidence file, folio 12 Cf. Brief filed by Héctor Hugo Boleso with the Inter-American Commission on June 29, 2001 (evidence file, folio 465 to 474). 13 Documentary evidence can generally be submitted, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, with the briefs submitting the case, with pleadings and motions, or answering the submission of the case, as applicable. Evidence forwarded outside the appropriate procedural moments is not admissible, except in the cases established in the above-mentioned Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (force majeure or serious impediment) 7