17. In its answer brief, the State submitted a preliminary objection related to the timebarred presentation of the case before the Court, in accordance with Article 42 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and Article 51(1) of the American Convention. A. Arguments of the State and observations of the representatives and the Commission 18. The State indicated that, in order to comply with the time limit established in Article 51 of the Convention, the Commission submitted the case to the Court on July 5, 2017, via email, in an incomplete manner. It argued that subsequently, on July 14, 2017, the Commission forwarded the annex as required by Article 35(1) (d) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 19. It noted that the Court had confirmed that the Commission did not forward the information on the expert witnesses in its submission brief, but had granted it until July 26, 2017, to forward said information, having regard to the regulatory period of 21 days established in Article 28(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 20. The State noted that, in response to the cited communication, on July 25, 2017, the Commission forwarded the names of the two expert witnesses proposed, together with clarification regarding other evidence offered, without having forwarded the curriculum vitae of the expert witnesses. It added that the Commission forwarded the curriculum vitae of the proposed experts to the Court on August 7, 2017, in other words, 33 days after the incomplete presentation of the submission of the case. 21. The State concluded that, given the belated submission of the expert witnesses’ curriculum vitae, the Commission had not fulfilled all the requirements established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure for the submission of the case until 33 days after the regulatory and conventional deadline had expired, and therefore its preliminary objection should be admitted on those grounds. 22. In a note dated August 7, 2017, the Commission argued that it had provided the pertinent explanations regarding the late submission of the expert witnesses’ curriculum vitae. Furthermore, the delayed presentation of this information occurred before the Court had notified the case to the State, and therefore the right to defense would not be substantially affected. However, it pointed out that the State’s argument does not constitute a preliminary objection, since the forwarding of the experts’ curriculum vitae is related exclusively to the Court’s decision on the admissibility of the evidence and has no legal effect whatsoever on the submission of the case within the period established in Article 51 of the American Convention. In this regard, the Commission held that it had complied with the term. 23. The representatives considered that Venezuela’s arguments did not constitute a preliminary objection, since a rejection would only have effects on the admissibility of the evidence, but not on the hearing of the case by the Court. They added that the State’s interpretation regarding the date of submission of the brief was erroneous, given that the Court’s Rules of Procedure do not stipulate that a case is deemed to have been presented on the date on which the submission brief and its annexes are received. On the contrary, the case is deemed to have been submitted on the date on which the brief and the report are forwarded, regardless of its annexes. B. Considerations of the Court 6