6 A.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the representatives and of the Commission. 15. The State filed the preliminary objection of “res judicata” because it considered that “the procedural circumstances” of the case involving the alleged victims “were at all times in accordance with the corpus iuris in force in Guatemala. In other words, the due process established in the domestic criminal procedural laws was complied with, a final judgment convicting the accused was handed down, the appeals filed by the accused were exhausted and, lastly, the final judgment delivered by the court that heard the case and convicted the accused was executed.” In addition, it argued that for almost 20 years, Guatemala had not applied the death penalty. Accordingly, it asked that the Court admit the objection. 16. In their observations, the representatives argued that, when filing its objection, the State had not complied with the requirements established in Article 42(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure because it had failed to indicate the legal grounds on which its request was based, and had not submitted evidence to support the request, merely indicating that all the actions taken at the domestic level in the criminal proceedings against the direct alleged victims had been consistent with due process. They added that the State had not justified the provisions of Article 47(d) of the American Convention. Consequently, they asked the Court to declare the objection inadmissible. 17. The Commission argued that the State’s assertion did not constitute a preliminary objection; rather, fundamentally, the question corresponded to the merits of the case. Therefore, it asked the Court to “ reject the so-called objection of res judicata filed by the State.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 18. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are acts by which a State seeks, in a preliminary manner, to prevent the analysis of the merits of a disputed matter and, to this end, it may file an objection against the admissibility of a case or of the Court’s competence to hear a specific case or any of its aspects based either on the person, the matter, the time or the place, provided that its arguments are of a preliminary nature.6 If these arguments cannot be considered without a preliminary examination of the merits of the case, they cannot be analyzed by means of a preliminary objection.7 19. The State argued the “objection of res judicata” because it understood that there had been no violation of human rights in this case and, thus, the Court would not have competence to examine violations in the context of the criminal proceedings. However, this is precisely what will be discussed when examining the merits of the matter. When assessing the merits of the case, the Court will determine whether the domestic proceedings respected the exercise of, and respect for, the international obligations of the State. Therefore, the Court finds that the arguments presented do not constitute a preliminary objection because they do not include the reasons why this case would be inadmissible or the Court without competence to hear it. Consequently, the Court declares the preliminary objection filed by the State inadmissible. Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 382, para. 19. 7 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 19. 6