5 also the five-week extension granted to it was less than the delay incurred by the representatives.” Moreover, the mere fact that, “within the time limit for the answer to the application, it had to respond to two different briefs [the application and the pleadings and motions brief] resulted in an imbalance between the parties.” Consequently, it asked the Court not to admit the pleadings and motions brief or its attachments. 13. The Commission considered that this allegation by the State did not correspond to a preliminary objection, but rather to a formal observation on the pleadings and motions brief. Moreover, it said that it “would not refer [to it] because it was not aware of the date on which the victims had received their copy of the application with all its appendices and attachments and, consequently, the date from which the two months” granted them by the Court [to present the said brief] should be calculated.” 14. The representatives alleged that, in a note from the Secretariat of June 9, 2008, in response to the request for clarification made by the State, the parties were advised that the representatives had received the original brief of the application and its attachments by courier on February 6, 2008. Hence, the term of two months to present the pleadings and motions brief expired on April 6, 2008. In the opinion of the representatives, since that date was a Sunday, the said period was extended until the following Monday: that is, April 7, 2008, the date on which they sent their pleadings and motions brief via facsimile. In relation to Article 26(1) of the Rules of Procedure, they indicated that the term of seven days stipulated in this provision refers to the “sending” of the original documents and their attachments. In this regard, they alleged that their pleadings and motions brief and its attachments were sent to the Court on April 14, 2008, within the said term. * * * 15. Although the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure do not clarify the concept of “preliminary objection,” in its case law the Court has repeatedly stated that this measure questions the admissibility of an application or the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or an aspect of it, based on the person, the subject matter, the time or the place.9 Thus, the Court has indicated that the purpose of a preliminary objection is to obtain a decision that prevents or impedes the examination of the merits of the matter questioned or of the case as a whole. Consequently, the claim must satisfy the essential juridical characteristics in content and purpose that confer on it the nature of “preliminary objection.” Claims that do not conform to this description, such as those relating to the merits of the case, can be formulated by other procedural actions established in the American Convention, but not as a preliminary objection.10 16. In this case, the alleged failure of the representatives to comply with the time limit stipulated in the Rules of Procedure to submit the pleadings and motions brief and its attachments does not constitute a preliminary objection, because it does not contest the admissibility of the application or prevent the Court from hearing the case. Indeed, even if, hypothetically, the Court decided the State’s argument affirmatively, it would in no way affect the competence of the Court to examine the merits of the dispute. Consequently, the Court rejects this argument because it does not constitute a preliminary objection. 9 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; Gabriela Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 18, 2008, seventh considering paragraph; 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 Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 15. 10 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 9, para. 39, and Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 15.