6 18. By note of October 1, 1996, the Secretary asked the State to request a report from the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru as to whether Cantoral-Benavides or some person representing him, interposed a motion for review of the final judgment of October 6, 1995. Said document was not submitted by Peru. 19. hoc. On October 4, 1996, the State named Fernando Vidal-Ramírez as judge ad 20. On October 30, 1996, the Commission submitted its written brief on the preliminary objections raised by the State and requested that the Court dismiss them all. 21. On November 13, 1996, the State requested an extension of the period to answer the application, which the Court granted until December 16, 1996. 22. On December 12, 1996, Peru submitted its answer to the application. 23. On March 9, 1998, the President summoned Peru and the Commission to a public hearing to hear their oral arguments on the preliminary objections raised in this case. The aforementioned hearing took place on June 8, 1998. There appeared for the Government of Peru: Walter Palomino-Cabezas, alternate agent Ana Reátegui-Napurí, counsel, and Jennie Vizcarra-Alvizuri, counsel for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Domingo E. Acevedo, delegate Marcela Matamoros, assistant and Iván Bazán, assistant. 24. By note of August 18, 1998, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the Court, requested that Peru, pursuant to Article 44 of the Regulations, provide as best evidence a duly certified copy of the judicial document containing the date that the alleged victim was officially notified of the judgment of September 24, 1993, and a copy of the law that governs all procedural aspects of the extraordinary remedy of review in both the military and regular jurisdicitions. The aforementioned documents were not remitted by the State. V JURISDICTION 25. The Court has jurisdiction under Article 62(3) of the Convention, to hear the preliminary objections raised by Peru in the instant case. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. VI EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC RESOURCES 26. The Court observes that the objections basically relate to three procedural questions: the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies (first and seventh objections); the alleged lapse in the filing of the complaint and the application