4 parties. On June 24, 2009, the State submitted its observations on to the affidavits of Prof. Nigel Eastman, Mr. Edward Fitzgerald Q.C., and Dr. Timothy Green. 10. The public hearing in this case was held on July 1, 2009, during the Court’s LXXXIII Ordinary Period of Sessions.5 11. On July 31, 2009, the State submitted its final written arguments, and on August 3, 2009, the Commission and the representatives did the same. 12. On August 19, 2009, the President of the Court requested that the representatives submit verifying receipts and evidence regarding the expenses they incurred in the present case. On September 1, 2009, the representatives submitted the evidence requested by the President. On September 9 and 11, 2009, the Commission and the State indicated, respectively, that they had no observations regarding the alleged expenses incurred by the representatives. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 13. In its answer to the application, the State submitted the following three preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction: i) lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, ii) breach of the fourth instance rule, and iii) that the complaint no longer involved the Commission as a party. The Tribunal will proceed to analyze them in the order presented by the State. A) Lack of Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 14. In its answer to the application, the State objected to the admissibility of the case because domestic remedies have allegedly not been exhausted. In particular, the State argued that “although the [p]etitioner pursued substantially the same claims in Barbados domestic courts, his appeals were against conviction alone [and] he did not raise the potential violation of his right to a fair trial, as protected by Section 18 of the Constitution, which is the central claim in the current [p]etition.” Further, the State alleged that “the [p]etitioner therefore had, and has, available to him the right to pursue a constitutional motion to challenge all of the alleged violations of his human rights, including his rights to a fair trial or due process of law, particularly in relation to [access to adequate psychiatric expertise] and [the adequacy of legal aid].” Likewise, the State submitted that “because legal aid is in fact available in Barbados for constitutional challenges, this domestic remedy requiring exhaustion is effective, not unduly burdensome[,] and is not exceptional.” Consequently, the State alleged that “[c]onstitutional motions […] must be exhausted under the terms of Articles 46(1)(a) and 47(a) of the American Convention.” Finally, the State indicated that “[b]oth of Barbados’s notifications to the Commission regarding domestic remedies were filed subsequent to the initial report on admissibility of March 24, 2008, but before the final report, dated July 25, 2008. As such, they were transmitted in a timely manner, while the matter was still before the Inter-American Commission […], and Barbados had not waived its right to object, nor has it acquiesced in any manner.” 5 The following were present at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Commissioner Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, as Delegate, and Lily Ching Soto and Juan Pablo Albán, as advisers; (b) for the representatives: Saul Lehrfreund, Parvais Jabbar, and Douglas Mendes, and (c) for the State: Charles Leacock, as Agent; David S. Berry, as Deputy Agent, and Jennifer Edwards, Solicitor General of Barbados.