7 by the State, as well as final oral pleadings and observations from the parties and the Commission. On May 12, 2014 the Commission sent the Registrar the expert statement by Mr. Lovatón. 11. Public hearing and additional evidence. – Statements were taken at the May 27, 2014 hearing from the people who had been summoned (supra par. 10), along with observations from the Commission and final oral pleadings from the representatives and the State. Finally, the judges on the Court requested certain additional information and documentation from the parties to be supplied along with the final written pleadings and final written observations. 12. Final written pleadings and observations. – The representatives and the State submitted their final written pleadings on June 19, 26 and 30 and July 1, 2014. The Commission submitted its final written observations on June 30, 2014. The parties responded on July 17 and 18, 2014, filing their comments on the evidentiary documents that had been submitted and on the two final written pleadings on which comments had been requested. 13. Deliberation of the case. - The Court began deliberations on the instant case on November 19, 2014. III JURISDICTION 14. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear the instant case pursuant to article 62(3) of the Convention, as Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984 and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. The State filed two preliminary objections, arguing that the Court is not competent to hear the instant case. The Court will therefore begin by addressing the preliminary objections filed (infra pars. 18 to 38) and then, if it is legally in order, it will judge on the merits and requested reparations. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 15. The State raised four preliminary objections: (a) lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis; (b) lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae; (c) failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and (d) error in the drafting of a pleadings and motions brief. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are matters of a prior character that seek to prevent the analysis of the merits of a disputed matter by contesting the admissibility of an application or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a specific case or one of its aspects, owing to the person, matter, time or place, provided that these objections are of a preliminary nature. 10 If the assertions cannot be considered without previously analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be examined as a preliminary objection.11 16. In the first place, the Court notes that in its fourth preliminary objection, “error in the drafting of the pleadings and motions brief,” the State has pointed to inconsistencies allegedly contained in the brief by representatives Vega and Sommer between the facts of the case, individualization of the human rights allegedly violated, and the claims being pursued. The 10 Cfr. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, par. 34, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, par. 15. 11 Cfr. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, par. 39, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 15.