12 50. The fifth objection raised by the State concerns the Inter-American Court’s “lack of jurisdiction.” 51. The Court summarizes the State’s arguments for this objection as follows: a) It argued that “the purposes, competence and jurisdiction of the Court” have been vitiated” because the Court is being used “to adjudicate a compensatory damages suit without an intervening proceeding wherein it finds breaches of human rights commitments in a case involving new facts that the Court has not yet heard and adjudicated”; b) It added that “the Inter-American Court is biased on the facts in the instant case. This supranational body does not have the objectivity and ability to adjudicate this as a discrete case, since it will feel compelled to adhere to its earlier finding;” and c) During the public hearing it argued that the allegedly aggrieved parties could have availed themselves of local remedies for a resolution of their claims, but did not do so. 52. In rebutting this objection the Commission argued that the filing of a case could neither corrupt nor vitiate the purposes, competence and jurisdiction of the Court. The arguments used against the preliminary objection alleging failure to exhaust local remedies were cited. The Commission further maintained that the Court was not prejudging the same facts. While the Court had “established precedent in a case similar to but distinct from case 10,009,” the situation that the instant case involved was “entirely different” from the one alleged by the State. The Court’s objectivity and discretion were not influenced by facts similar to those of another case it had already adjudicated. 53. The Court has already held (supra, para. 43) that the persons referred to in the application in the instant case are not the same as those involved in the Neira Alegría et al. Case. 54. The Court therefore dismisses the fifth preliminary objection. IX LAPSE Objection Four 55. The fourth preliminary objection brought by the State concerns the “lapse of the application.” 56. The Court summarizes the State’s arguments as follows: a) The original petition filed with the Commission did not indicate which remedies under domestic law were pursued; it was not for another three years that the claimants, on February 14, 1990, mentioned having petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, and