Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dr. Jorge E. Orihuela-Iberico on the Preliminary Objection of Lack of Jurisdiction of the Commission In the Case of Neira Alegría et al. I. II. III. IV. Facts Normative Provisions Case Law Conclusions and Vote I. Facts A) The petition or complaint 1. Prior to presentation of the complaint to the Commission: 1.1. Petition for habeas corpus processed in three stages before the Judiciary, starting on July 16, 1986, and concluding on August 25, 1986. 1.2. Appeal before the Court of Constitutional Guarantees processed between September 22, 1986, and December 5, 1986. Notified in the Offical Gazette “El Peruano” on January 14, 1987. 2. Point 1 above shows that the petitioner fulfilled the requirement stipulated in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. 3. The main case file contains repeated statements regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the petitioners: 3.1. On page 246 they state “whereupon domestic remedies were exhausted” after the decision of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees; and 3.2. B) On page 208 “whereupon domestic remedies were exhausted.” The presentation of the petition or complaint to the Commission. Submitted in a document dated Washington, August 31, 1987, and received by the Commission on September 1, 1987, as shown on page 252 of the main case file. Acknowledged to be true in point one of the Index of Attachments compiled by the Commission together with the submission to the Court of October 16, 1990, which appears on page 254 of that same case file.