involved in the facts of the case; C. Lack of jurisdiction ratione personae for violations in abstract terms; D. Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis with regard to facts prior to the date on which the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction; E. Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis concerning facts prior to the State’s adhesion to the American Convention; F. Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae based on violation of the principle of the subsidiary nature of the inter-American system (rule of the fourth instance); G. Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae regarding presumed violations of the prohibition of trafficking in persons; H. Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae concerning supposed violations of labor rights; I. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and J. Prescription of the petition before the Commission as regards the claims for reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 17. Subsequently, in its final written arguments, the State filed a new preliminary objection concerning the Court’s supposed lack of jurisdiction in relation to the inspections carried out in 1999 and 2002. This preliminary objection will not be examined due to late presentation. 18. When deciding the objections filed by the State, the Court recalls that it will only consider as preliminary objections those arguments that, exclusively, are or could be of this nature based on their content and purpose; in other words, if decided favorably, they would prevent the continuation of the proceedings and a ruling on the merits.18 It has been the Court’s consistent criteria that a preliminary objection should present objections relating to the admissibility of a case or to the Court’s competence to examine a specific matter or part of one, due to the person, matter, time or place.19 19. The Court will now proceed to analyze the aforementioned preliminary objections in the order in which the State presented them. A. Alleged inadmissibility of the submission of the case to the Court owing to the publication of the Merits Report by the Commission A.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives 20. The State indicated that the preliminary report issued by the Commission could not be published by either the parties or the Commission. It also argued that the Commission’s final report, referred to in Article 50 of the American Convention, could only be published when the time frame established for complying with the recommended measures had expired or by the vote of the absolute majority of its members. The publication of that final report constituted “the maximum sanction” that a State could suffer under the procedure before the Commission. The State asserted that, before submitting this case to the Court, the Commission had published on its website the complete text of Admissibility and Merits Report No. 169/2011 of November 3, 2011, and that this meant that it was logically impossible to submit the case to the Court’s consideration, because the Convention authorized the Commission to issue a final report and eventually publish it, or to submit the case to the jurisdiction of the Court, possibilities that were mutually exclusive. The State considered that the publication of the Commission’s report had violated Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention, and therefore asked the Court to declare the case inadmissible. Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010, Series C No. 213, para. 35, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 20. 18 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000, Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 20. 19 9