41 Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin 126. In their arguments on preliminary objections, the representatives indicated that they would not refer to this point because “with some exceptions, the State’s arguments refer to the Commission’s application.” In their final written arguments, they indicated that the State had withdrawn the preliminary objected entitled “Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency [of the application]” and made no reference to the first part of the preliminary objection entitled “Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency between the object and the plea, and the body of the text.” Considerations of the Court 127. The Court rejects preliminary objection 3(1) (supra para. 121) entitled “Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency between the object and the plea, and the body of the text”, because it is not a true preliminary objection. FOURTH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Failure to exhaust domestic remedies” (“Justified delay in the corresponding decision” and “Inappropriateness of the remedy of habeas corpus”) 128. The Court will now summarize the arguments of the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin regarding this preliminary objection. Arguments of the State 129. The State indicated that “it had duly alleged the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies [in the proceeding before the Inter-American Commission], on the basis that the judicial proceeding before the pertinent instance had not yet been finalized, so that domestic remedies had not been exhausted,” and there had been a “Justified delay in the corresponding decision.” The State also alleged the “Inappropriateness of the remedy of habeas corpus” to determine the whereabouts of the Serrano Cruz sisters. In this regard, the State argued that: a) “It is not true that the decision of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concerning this objection is valid, because it never took into account all the inconsistencies” in the statements made by the mother of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz; b) During the criminal investigation, “pertinent procedures were conducted “seeking the truth and it has not been possible to determine or individualize anyone to whom the disappearance of the children could be attributed.” This is due to facts that cannot be attributed to the State, but to “external agents” such as: incoherence of the evidence provided by the alleged victims’ next of kin, particularly the evidence provided by their mother, who has changed her testimony; essential evidence for clarifying the facts was destroyed in the fires that occurred in Army barracks and on the premises of the Salvadoran Red Cross during the armed conflict; failure to