7 allowances to Mr. Muelle Flores. 15. Observations of the representatives and the Commission. The President granted the representatives and the Commission a period of time to present any observations deemed pertinent to the helpful evidence forwarded by the State and to the report of December 20, 2018. On December 5 and 17, 2018, as well as on January 7, 2019, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to make. After requesting an extension on December 18, 2018, the representatives presented their observations to the helpful evidence provided by the State and on the report of December 20, 2018. 16. Disbursements in application of the Victims’ Assistance Fund. On November 14, 2018, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President of the Court, forwarded information to the State regarding the disbursements made in application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter the “Assistance Fund of the Court” or the “Fund”) in the present case and, pursuant to Article 5 of the Rules for the Operation of said Fund, granted it a period to present any observations deemed pertinent. On November 28, 2018 the State indicated that it had no observations to make regarding the cited report. 17. Deliberation of the instant case. The Court began its deliberation of this Judgment on February 5, 2019. III JURISDICTION 18. The Court is competent to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given that Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 19. In its answering brief, the State filed a preliminary objection regarding the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies.” Also, under the heading of “procedural matters” it presented “observations regarding the unwarranted inclusion of Article 26 by the [representatives],” and expressed its disagreement with the Court’s interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention, as well as its competence to analyze this matter. 20. The Court recalls that a preliminary objection is an act that contests the admissibility of an application or the jurisdiction of the Court to hear a specific case or any of its aspects, based on the person, the issue, the time or the place, provided that those assertions are of a preliminary nature.6 If these assertions cannot be considered without prior analysis of the merits of a case, they cannot be analyzed through the mechanism of a preliminary objection.7 Accordingly, irrespective of whether an assertion is defined as a “preliminary objection,” its content and purpose must have the essential juridical characteristics that ensure that it is of a preliminary nature, that is, it must object to the admissibility of the application or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case or any of its aspects, and it must therefore be settled as such.8 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C. No.374, para.21. 7 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008, para. 39, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 97. 6 8 Cf. Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States, supra, para. 39, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections,