10 ordinary hearing to request a declaration that the evidence had been obtained illegally and that the tapes should be destroyed. 33. The Commission stated that this preliminary objection is based on the State’s disagreement with decisions taken at the opportune moment. It added that it had heard the arguments of both parties concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, strictly respecting the adversarial principle. The arguments were duly examined and considered in light of the Convention, the case law of the inter-American system, the evidence provided and the characteristics of the specific case and, consequently, “any new discussion of the issue became irreceivable.” The Commission also maintained that, in its answer to the application, the State had not claimed that the decision on admissibility had been based on erroneous information or that it had resulted from a proceeding in which the parties did not act with equality of arms or that there had been a violation of the right to defense. For the Commission, “in principle, the content of the admissibility decisions adopted pursuant to the rules established in the Convention and in [its] Rules of Procedure […] should not be subject to a new substantive examination.” Therefore, the Commission asked the Court to reject the preliminary objection filed by the State as unsubstantiated. 34. The representatives indicated that the State’s claim that this action was inappropriate to contest the telephone interceptions should not be admitted. The request was received - although subsequently rejected - by the Court of Justice and its decision did not mention the supposed inappropriateness of the procedural mechanism used, thereby implicitly acknowledging the validity of the mandado de segurança for the intended purpose. If this domestic court had understood that the matter should be examined by means of another type of action, it could have processed the petition as habeas corpus or extinguished the proceedings owing to the inappropriateness of the request. The representatives stated that, when filing the mandado de segurança, the violations of the right to freedom of association and to honor and dignity had already been committed, so that they were using this remedy to attempt to prevent the continuation of these violations. Given the extinction of the proceedings without a judgment on the merits and the denial of the embargos de declaração, it was useless to continue the discussion on ending the telephone interceptions up to the Superior Court of Justice by means of a recurso ordinário constitucional, because the interceptions had ceased and because the mandado de segurança would not have allowed the alleged victims to obtain the sanction of the public agents involved in the unlawful activities. The representatives adduced that, since the interceptions had ceased when the mandado de segurança was filed, the specific remedy for the intended purpose had been exhausted. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the State should be rejected. * * * 35. The State filed the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the mandado de segurança in the brief it presented to the Inter-American Commission on November 14, 2001, that is, during the admissibility stage of the petition. The Court finds that the objection was presented opportunely. 36. Regarding the appropriate remedy to halt the alleged violations of the presumed victims’ human rights, the Court understands, as indicated by the expert witness proposed by the State,22 that habeas corpus is a remedy whose application “is restricted to cases of a threat to or violation of freedom of movement […] by an unlawful action or abuse of authority.” In turn, the mandado de segurança “is an instrument for the protection of a real 22 Cf. Expert opinion provided by Maria Thereza Rocha de Assis Moura during the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on December 3, 3008.