6 32. On May 2, 2006 the Commission filed its comments on the expert statement given by Cristián Maturana-Miquel by means of an affidavit. The Commission requested the Court that “the statement given by Mr. Maturana-Miquel be dismissed on the grounds that it was not in accordance with the object for which it had been requested.” 33. On May 22, 2006, the State and the Commission submitted their final written arguments. The State attached documentary evidence thereto, as well as the documents requested by the Court at the public hearing (supra para. 28). 34. On June 14, 2006 the Commission challenged the appendixes to the final written arguments filed by the State. The Commission stated that “by virtue of the estoppel principle” and the fact that the State had not filed such documents at the proper procedural stage, “they were to be dismissed outright.” Furthermore, the Commission requested that “should the [...] Court admit the documents that have been challenged [...], the procedural equality for the parties is to be ensured, granting each of them the opportunity to file their comments on the content of the documents submitted.” 35. On June 14, 2006 the Secretariat, on instructions from the President, informed the Commission that the Court, seeking the fulfillment of the procedural equality for the parties and the principle of the adversary proceeding, always notifies the parties of all the documents filed by one of them so that they may file their comments thereon. To this purpose, the Court does not set a term, in the understanding that filing comments is a right of, but not an obligation for the interested party. In the instant case, the Secretariat forwarded the Inter-American Commission and the representative the documents tendered by the Illustrated State together with its final written arguments. The Commission was entitled to file comments on such documents, which it actually did through brief of June 14, 2006 (supra para. 34). Furthermore, the Secretariat informed the Commission that in case it wished to expand its comments, these should be forwarded to the Court as soon as possible. The Commission did not file any additional comments. 36. On July 6, 2006 the representative of the alleged victims forwarded legible copies of some of the documents filed together with their final written arguments (supra para. 31), as well as additional documents. 37. On July 27, 2006 the State filed its comments and documentary evidence attached thereto regarding the comments filed on May 2, 2006 by the Commission on the expert statement given by Cristián Maturana-Miquel (supra para. 32). PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 38. In its answer to the application (supra para. 17) the State expressly stated two preliminary objections, to wit: i) the lack of ratione temporis competence of the Court to hear the instant case, and ii) the violations committed during the proceeding before the Inter-American Commission. Notwithstanding, the Court understands that another objection to the jurisdiction of the Court may be inferred from the various arguments filed by the Chilean State: the failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. Though the State did not claim this argument as a preliminary objection, the Court deems it relevant to issue a ruling on this matter in this chapter.