2 175. Notwithstanding the foregoing, let it be known that the State invoked domestic provisions contained in the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure (that the Court transcribed), pursuant to which the measures adopted were within the jurisdiction of the Procurator General. A reading of the Constitution shows that "Everyone shall have, in case of infringement of one's rights and freedoms, a claim to an honest and public treatment of his complaint within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial judge,”1 and that "Interested parties shall have the right to submit to the court for reassessment any final and enforceable act by agencies of public administration, which is believed to be unlawful.” 2 The lack of arguments in this regard on the part of the alleged victim does not allow this Court to ascertain whether in domestic law there were exceptions that would render the provisions on the restriction of the right to leave the country inadmissible. 176. Given these circumstances, I consider that the procedural arguments set forth in the Judgment are insufficient to justify the dismissal of this preliminary objection. Alberto Pérez Pérez Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Registrar 1 Article 10: Everyone shall have, in case of infringement of one's rights and freedoms, a claim to an honest and public treatment of his complaint within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial judge. 2 Article 158, paragraph 2: “Interested parties shall have the right to submit to the court for reassessment any final and enforceable act by agencies of public administration, which is believed to be unlawful.”