-711. Final written arguments and observations. On March 3, 2015, the parties and the Commission presented their final written arguments and observations, respectively. Together with their final written arguments the parties presented some of the information, explanations, and useful evidence requested by the judges of this Court (supra para. 9), as well as certain documentation. On March 6, 2015, the Court’s Secretariat, at the request of the President, asked the parties and the Commission to submit any observations they deemed pertinent on the said documentation. 12. Useful information and evidence, and supervening evidence on expenses. On July 20 and 23, 2015, the President of the Court asked the State to present useful information and evidence. The State submitted this information and documentation on August 7, 2015. 13. Observations on the useful information and evidence, and the supervening evidence on expenses. On March 13, 18 and 25, 2015, the State and the representatives presented their observations on the documentation presented by the other party together with their final written arguments. On August 19 and 21, 2015, the representatives and the Commission presented their observations on the information and documentation submitted by the State on August 7, 2015. 14. Deliberation of this case. The Court began deliberating this judgment on September 28, 2015. III JURISDICTION 15. The Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Honduras has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 8, 1977, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on September 9, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ALLEGED FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES A. Arguments of the State and observations of the representatives and the Commission 16. The State argued that neither the contentious administrative action nor the application for amparo had been exhausted. Regarding the contentious administrative action, it indicated that, according to the law, this remedy is able to examine “[t]he execution of decisions adopted under the Judicial Service Act aimed at reimbursements or payment of compensation.”5 Regarding the application for amparo (constitutional protection), it asserted that article 183 of the Constitution, as well as the Constitutional Justice Act recognized the guarantee of amparo, thereby tacitly annulling article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council. 17. The Commission reiterated that, “in the first place, the Convention attribute[d] decisions concerning admissibility” to the Commission, so that “the content of admissibility decisions […] should not be re-examined at subsequent stages of the proceedings.” It indicated that, “in principle, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it was incumbent on the Court to defer to the decisions taken by the [Commission] in this regard.” It stressed that the argument of failure to exhaust the contentious administrative action was time-barred. Furthermore, it indicated that the Council’s decision could not be contest according to article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council. Lastly, it indicated that, in the Admissibility Report, it had established that 5 In this regard, it cited article 3(c) of the Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction Act. Cf. Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction Act (evidence file, folios 6972 to 6981).