10 proceedings conducted in relation to the facts denounced by Mr. Oscar Muelle Flores.18 In that brief, the State did not invoke Article 46(1) of the Convention at any time, nor did it argue that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, or that the petition was inadmissible, and merely described the status of the proceeding.19 In this sense, the Court has indicated that “a mere recount of the procedural actions undertaken is not sufficient to file a preliminary objection, given that, in the absence of a clear and timely argument by the State, it appears that the latter did not allege the failure to exhaust domestic remedies during the admissibility stage before the Commission.” 20 This Court also understands that a “clear manifestation” is deduced from general expressions such as “existing domestic remedies ha[d] not been exhausted;”21 however, in this case it was not even expressed in those terms. Therefore, the Court considers that the State has not presented the aforementioned defense in a timely manner. 28. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State’s objection concerning the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies is time-barred. Therefore, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection filed by the State. As a result, the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on the arguments concerning the procedural moment at which failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be analyzed or the exception of unwarranted delay. B. Objection regarding the Court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae and the direct justiciability of Article 26 of the Convention B.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 29. The State pointed out that the representatives were not claiming the justiciability of the rights in the Convention, but rather of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinafter “ESCER”), specifically the right to social security. The State argued that Article 19(6) of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Protocol of San Salvador” (hereinafter “Protocol of San Salvador”), clearly delimited the jurisdiction of the Commission and of the Court in relation to the issue at hand, establishing that these bodies could only examine the protection of trade union rights and the right to education, through the mechanism of individual petitions before the inter-American system, but not the right to social security. It considered that it was not acceptable to undermine the content of the provisions of Article 19(6) of the San Salvador Protocol, which was a binding standard for the organs of the system, and that the pro personae principle would only be applicable within the framework of the competences established in the inter-American order. 30. The State highlighted the positions of some Judges of the Court who opposed the direct justiciability of ESCER, stating that it shared this view in all its aspects. In this regard, it emphasized that the rights included in the Convention’s protection system were those established up to Article 25 and, although other rights and freedoms could exist, these should be included in the protection system through the mechanisms envisaged in Articles 31, 76 and 77 of the Convention. It further stressed that adding rights was not within the jurisdiction of the Court, but of the States. It held that 18 Cf. Report No. 48-2010-JUS/PPES of the State of Peru of February 25, 2010, received by the Inter-American Commission on March 1, 2010 (evidence file, folios 39.8 to 39.9). 19 The fact that the State did not allege failure to exhaust domestic remedies was taken up by the Commission in Admissibility Report No. 106/10. Cf. Admissibility Report No. 106/10, Petition 147-98, Oscar Muelle Flores, Peru, July 16, 2010, para. 327 (evidence file, folio 225). 20 Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 24. 21 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, paras. 118 and 122, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 23.