order to receive their final oral arguments and observations, respectively, on the preliminary objections and on the eventual merits, reparations and costs, as well as to receive the statements of two experts proposed by the State. 11 Due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the public hearing was held June 14-15, 2021, during the 142nd regular session of the Court, by video conference in accordance with the terms of the Rules of the Court. 12 10. Final written arguments and observations. – On July 6, 2021, Ms. Meneses Huayra submitted her final written arguments. Two days later, Mr. Valdivia Ayala, Mr. Guerrero Cassuso, Mr. Rossi Mérida and Ms. Valdivia and the Commission presented their final written arguments and observations, respectively. The State submitted its final written arguments on July 12, which was after the deadline, and thus the Court, on September 1, declared them inadmissible. 13 11. Deliberation of the present case. – The Court deliberated this judgment in meetings held virtually on January 31 and February 1, 2022. 14 III JURISDICTION 12. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, since Peru ratified the Convention on July 12, 1978 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 13. The State filed two preliminary objections: (i) a request that the Court carry out a control of legality of the Commission’s act of incorporating into its Merits Report events that occurred after the issuance of its Admissibility Report and (ii) the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court will analyze each objection separately. A. Preliminary objection regarding control of legality of the actions of the Commission a.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives 14. The State indicated that the Commission, in its Merits Report, incorporated “events that occurred after the admissibility stage of the case, events about which the State was not able to adopt Cf. Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Call to a public hearing. Order of the President of the Court of May 20, 2021. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/federacion_nacional_de_trabajadores_maritimos_y_portuarios_20_05_21.pdf. On May 31, 2021, in view of the request for reconsideration filed by the State, the Court modified the method of the statement of the expert Ernesto Alonso Aguinaga Meza and that of Edmundo Villacorta Ramírez, both proposed by the State. Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Order of the Court of May 31, 2021. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/femapor_31_05_21.pdf 12 Appearing at the hearing were: (a) for the Commission: Flávia Piovesan, Marisol Blanchard, Erick Acuña and Daniela Saavedra; (b) for the representatives: Mr. Valdivia Ayala, Ms. Valdivia Bocanegra, Ms. Meneses Huayra, Fernando Joel Munayco Castro and Hugo Juan López Avanto; (c) for the State: Carlos Miguel Reaño Balarezo, Carlos Llaja Villena, Nilda Peralta Zecenarro, Judith Cateriny Córdova Alva and Dévora Eloísa Silva Ipince. 13 Note of the Secretariat of the Court-18-2019/165, of September 22, 2021. 14 The judgment was deliberated and adopted during the 146th regular session, which, due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-10 pandemic, was held using technological means in accordance with the terms of the Rules of the Court. 11 6