12 these amici curiae to the Commission, the representatives, the State, and the persons, organizations and institutions. V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 55. The State filed the following preliminary objections: “[…] failure to exhaust the State’s domestic remedies […]” and “[n]on-compliance with the friendly settlement [proposal] presented by the Commission and accepted by the State […]” in its brief answering the application. Subsequently, during the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on March 14 and 15, 2005, the State alleged the preliminary objection of the Court’s “[l]ack of competence ratione temporis.” * * * FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Failure to exhaust the State’s domestic remedies Arguments of the State 56. The State argued that: a) This preliminary objection was duly filed before the Inter-American Commission during the first stages of the proceeding as evidenced by, among other elements, “documents and communications prepared by the State[, such as] the note dated September 28 1999 [submitted to the Commission on September 30, 1999; the [record of the hearing [held on] October 5, 1999, [...] at the seat of the [Commission, and the] note of November 22, 1999 [submitted to the Commission on December 1, 1999].” Even though this objection was rejected by the Commission, the Court is competent to hear it; b) The most appropriate domestic remedy in this case is the hierarchic recourse that exists in administrative law, established in article 1 of Act No. 1494 of August 2, 1947. This remedy should be filed before the superior administrative instance to the one that committed the alleged violation, in this case the Central Electoral Board. The alleged victims did not make use of this remedy; c) The Public Prosecutor’s intervention is part of the late declaration procedure and is not an instance before which a remedy should be filed. “When a procedure is carried out before a civil status registrar, the latter (not the parties) forwards the file to the Public Prosecutor so that the latter may issue his opinion and the court of first instance decides whether or not to ratify the late declaration.” The action filed by the representatives before the Public Prosecutor of the Judicial District of the Province of Monte Plata on September 11, 1997, does not constitute filing a hierarchic recourse. In these procedures, this step is only deemed to be a consultation, so that the Public Prosecutor may make a recommendation to the court of first instance designated to hear the late declaration proceeding;”