documentation. On November 8, 2012, the State presented a copy of the legislation requested by the President of the Court (supra para. 18). 20. On November 19 and 23, 2012, the representative and the State submitted their observations on the legislation requested by the President of the Court (supra para. 18). On November 20, 2012, the Inter-American Commission indicated that it did not have any observations to make on this legislation. 21. On November 23, 2012, the representative requested that the identity of one of the victims of the case be kept confidential. On December 13 and 21, 2012, respectively, the Inter-American Commission and the State submitted their observations in this regard. On May 14, 2013, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an Order in which it rejected this request. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A. Preliminary objection concerning the procedural purpose of the case A.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 22. The State filed two preliminary objections concerning the procedural purpose of the case. First, it maintained that the pleadings of the representative of the presumed victims “introduce, for the first time, issues concerning […] the juvenile criminal regime,” relating to the sentences to life imprisonment, sentence execution, and observance of the guarantee of review of convictions, which should have led to their rejection in limine, because they exceeded the procedural purpose on which the case before the Commission was based. In addition, the State argued that a proceeding is pending before the Inter-American Commission – namely Petition P-668-09 Leonardo Ariel Rosales et al. – “which addresses the situation of the treatment of children under the age of criminal responsibility” and the issues alleged by the representative. Second, the State affirmed that the detention conditions of Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, and César Alberto Mendoza in juvenile institutions and establishments belonging to the Federal Prison Service, as well as the supposed negative consequences of the transfers on their resocialization process alleged by the representative, exceeded the procedural purpose of the case. 23. The Commission indicated that in addition to the human rights violations alleged in this specific case, the State had also failed to comply with the obligation determined in Article 2 of the American Convention, as established in the Merits Report of the case, owing to the persistence of a legal framework incompatible with this international instrument as regards both the treatment of juvenile offenders pursuant to the provisions of Law 22,278, on the Juvenile Criminal Regime, and the remedies regulated in other relevant laws. Therefore, the Commission considered that, pursuant to the Court’s case law, autonomous legal claims could be filed based on the said factual framework. The Commission also indicated that it did not have sufficient elements to derive any specific human rights violation under the American Convention from the supposed transfers of the presumed victims. However, it confirmed that this allegation had been submitted and debated in the proceedings before the Commission and analyzed in the Merits Report. 24. The representative argued that the State had not indicated how the first preliminary objection would prevent the case from moving forward with regard to matters relating to the merits, because, even in if the Court understood that there was an overlap between this 12