immigration authorities knew or were informed about the resident or refugee status of the presumed victims in Chile or about their real possibility of returning to that country. The presumed victims and their representatives were advised that the Court would decide on the admissibility of the documentation that had not been requested by the Court or its President, as well as the arguments regarding them, at the appropriate procedural stage. Also, on the instructions of the President, the State and the Commission were informed that, if they considered it pertinent, they had until May 24, 2013, to present their observations, but this did not represent a new procedural opportunity to expand their arguments. On that date, the State presented its observations and, also, transmitted other documentation 10 and expanded its arguments, which were not admitted.11 On June 12, 2013, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to confirm the authenticity and dates of issue and receipt of the documentation forwarded by Mr. Pacheco Osco and his representatives, and received a reply from the Ambassador of Chile to the Republic of Costa Rica on July 5, 2013. In response to a request from the State, and on the instructions of the President, on July 18, 2013, the Secretariat asked the Ambassador of Chile to Costa Rica to provide information on the receipt of a note that had been sent by Bolivian authorities to the Consulate General of Chile in Bolivia on July 5, 2012, and the steps taken in this regard, and a reply was received on September 5, 2013. The State and the Commission presented their corresponding observations on September 19, 2013 (infra paras. 48 to 52). III. COMPETENCE 13. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Bolivia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 19, 1979, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993. IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 14. In its answering brief, the State presented five preliminary objections, namely: (a) request to exclude new facts and alleged violations presented by the representatives; (b) the Court’s lack of competence “to hear this case because the measures established in Articles 46 to 51 of the Convention had not been exhausted”; (c) lack of competence ratione loci of the Court; (d) lack of competence ratione materiae, and (e) absence of legality in the Inter-American Commission’s exercise of its attributes. Nevertheless, during the oral hearing and in its final written arguments, the State indicated that “these partial objections are intrinsically related to the merits of the matter”; that they “may be analyzed together with the merits,” and asked the Court, “within the framework of its competence, to address these arguments in the appropriate chapter of the judgment.” 15. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are a recourse by which the State seeks, before the case is heard, to prevent the analysis of the merits of the matter contested and, to this end, it may raise an objection to the admissibility of the case, or to the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any of its aspects, based on the persons, the matter, the time or 10 Regarding the annexes to the said communication of the State, it was advised that the Court would decide on the admissibility of documentation submitted on this procedural occasion that had not been requested by the Court or its President, as well as any related arguments, at the appropriate procedural stage. 11 The State presented arguments in relation to the observations made by the representatives and the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights on the annexes to the State’s final written arguments. In this regard, in a note of the Secretariat of June 12, 2013, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was advised that the Court would not take these arguments into account, because they had not been requested, and their presentation was not established in the Court’s the Rules of Procedure. 8