13 facts described by the Commission occurred after Nicaragua had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. 65. It is for the Court to determine what happened in this case. To this end, it will examine the evidence that has been gathered and the statements of the parties. Based on the facts that it decides have been proved, the Court will rule on the existence of the alleged violations. 66. When deciding on the merits of this case, the Court will bear in mind the State’s arguments with regard to the first and fourth preliminary objections, since they involve arguments that contest the existence of the alleged violations. 67. Based on the above, the Court rejects the first and fourth preliminary objections because they do not involve genuine objections. * * * SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Absence of the admissibility requirements established in Article 46 of the American Convention on Human Rights” 68. Arguments of the State: (a) “[I]n the instant case, the situations described in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph (2) of […] Article [46 of the American Convention] do not exist. Therefore, the application and its expansion should not have been admitted.” The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case, according to Article 61(2) of the Convention; (b) “Due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that it is alleged have been violated [was] in force, because the plaintiffs exhausted domestic recourses under the Constitution and the Electoral Act.” The State also referred to the powers that the Electoral Act grants to the Departmental (CED), Regional (CER) and Municipal (CEM) Electoral Councils. The domestic laws that regulate the exercise of political rights should be adapted to the parameters of the American Convention “to the extent allowed by the Constitution”; (c) “The Commission itself admitted that the existing recourses had been exhausted; (d) “The powers that Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention […] grant to the Inter-American Commission […] allow it to determine whether the petition of an alleged victim is admissible.” Nevertheless, that decision only binds the alleged victim and the Commission, but it does not bind the Court or the defendant State”; and (e) “The right of the State to contest the application by alleging that it is not admissible was exercised at the opportune moment before the Inter-American Court, by means of the preliminary objections”. 69. Arguments of the Commission