14. Helpful information and evidence. On February 7, 2020, the President of the Court asked the State to present helpful documentation. Peru presented this information on February 13 and 28, 2020. 15. Observations on the helpful information and evidence. On October 21, 2019, the Commission, the representatives and the State presented their observations on the annexes presented with the final written arguments. The representatives and the Commission also presented their observations on the helpful evidence presented by the State. 16. Deliberation of this case. The Court began to deliberate this judgment on March 12, 2020. III JURISDICTION 17. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Peru has been a State Party to this instrument since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. In addition, the State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on March 28, 1991. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 18. In this case, the State filed three preliminary objections relating to: (a) the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies; (b) the subsidiary nature of the inter-American system, and (c) the “fourth instance” objection. A. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies A.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 19. The State argued that “the order to dismiss the proceedings […] requiring the archive of the criminal investigation for the offenses of rape and abuse of authority could have been contested by the presumed victim and/or her representatives […] pursuant to domestic law.” In this regard, it indicated that the remedy was filed belatedly. Therefore, the State argued that the presumed victim had incurred in an “improper exhaustion of domestic remedies” and, consequently, the Commission should have declared the petition inadmissible. 20. The Commission reiterated the analysis made in the Admissibility Report. It also indicated that “in the case of acts of torture such as those denounced by Azul Rojas Marín, the domestic remedies should be provided by the State ex officio”; therefore, “an appeal against a specific procedural measure should not be understood as an appropriate and effective remedy in cases of serious human rights violations, because an appropriate and effective remedy would be the integrity of the investigation and criminal proceedings that […] should be opened and conducted satisfactorily and, ex officio, by the State.” It also asserted that, the analysis of admissibility revealed that “there were numerous indications that prima facie pointed to the ineffectiveness of the investigations that were conducted and that culminated in the dismissal of the proceedings” and that “[o]n this basis, the Commission made a preliminary decision on the lack of effectiveness of the domestic remedies which was amply confirmed in its analysis of the merits.” The Commission asked the Court not to diverge from the analysis made in the Admissibility Report and to reject the preliminary objection filed by the State. 7