10 54. On June 14, 2005, the President addressed a communication to the State regarding the three briefs submitted on May 18 and 19, 2005 (supra paras. 52 and 53). V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 55. In the brief answering the application and with comments on the brief with requests and arguments (supra para. 18), the State filed the following preliminary objections: “First: Lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”; “Second: Absence of the admissibility requirements established in Article 46 of the American Convention on Human Rights”; “Third: Illegitimacy of the representatives”; “Fourth: Lack of right of action”; and “Fifth: Obscurity of the application and its expansion”. 56. The Court will proceed to examine together the first and fourth preliminary objections presented by the State, and will then examine the other preliminary objections separately in the order in which they were filed. * * * FIRST AND FOURTH PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS “Lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights” and “Lack of right of action” Arguments of the State 57. Regarding the first objection: (a) Since, in Nicaragua, there are norms that regulate the presentation of candidates for the offices of mayor, deputy mayor and councilor, as well as their election, “it is not admissible for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to affirm that the State […] has failed to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions that facilitate the exercise of the rights recognized in Article 1(1) of the Convention and, consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a violation that does not exist. In view of the foregoing, the Commission cannot […] affirm that the Nicaraguan State […] has failed to comply with the general obligation to respect rights referred to in Article 1(1) of the Convention. [T]herefore, […] the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a nonexistent violation; (b) “There has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights attributes to the State of Nicaragua and, consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a nonexistent violation”;