13.a.2). This alleged violation occurred and ended before the date of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. 27. The Court has established that when a State acknowledges its international responsibility for violations of the American Convention that occurred before it accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, it waives the temporal limitation on the exercise of the Court’s competence with regard to the facts or the violations acknowledged, thereby giving its consent for the Court to examine the events that occurred and to rule on the violations that occurred in this regard. 21 Therefore, based on the State's acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court finds that, in this case, it has competence to examine the alleged violation of Articles 13 and 16 of the Convention to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García. V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS A) Regarding the preliminary objection 28. In its answering brief, the State indicated that “in this case, domestic remedies have not been exhausted” and this together with the “complementary and subsidiary nature […] [of the inter-American system…], le[d] to filing the failure to exhaust domestic remedies as a preliminary objection.” During the public hearing, the State “withdr[ew] the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies.” However, in its final written arguments, the State “reiterate[d] the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies filed in the answering brief.” 29. In its final observations, the Commission “emphasize[d] that, during [the] public hearing, the State withdrew the preliminary objection filed in its answering brief”; hence, it asked the Court to “take [the said] waiver into account and to proceed to analyze the merits of the case.” The representatives did not refer to the State’s withdrawal of the preliminary objection. Considerations of the Court 30. Article 42(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that preliminary objections may only be filed in the answering brief. The filing of the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies is a procedural right of the State. Therefore, the State may waive this right at any time during the proceedings. 22 31. In the instant case, the State filed a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies in its answering brief. On the next procedural occasion, the public hearing, the State clearly and precisely indicated that it withdrew this preliminary objection. Nevertheless, subsequently, in its final written arguments, the State “reiterate[d]” the preliminary objection. This Court recalls that, under international practice and pursuant to its case law, when a party to litigation adopts a specific position that is detrimental to itself 21 In this regard, see, Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 30; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 22. See also, Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 192. 22 Cf. Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al. Series A No. G 101/81, para. 26, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, footnote 16. 12