24. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are procedural acts that contest the admissibility of an application, or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a case, or any of its aspects, based on the person, the issue, the time or the place.14 Accordingly, irrespective of whether an assertion is defined as a preliminary objection, if the arguments presented cannot be analyzed without considering elements that refer to the merits of the case, those aspects cannot be addressed by means of a preliminary objection.15 25. In this case, the Commission’s alleged failure to comply with the time limit for presenting the curriculum vitae of the expert witnesses applies exclusively to the offer of evidence proposed by the Commission, and does not affect the admissibility of the application or prevent the Court from hearing the case. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this argument since it does not properly constitute a preliminary objection.16 26. Nevertheless, the Court points out that the President analyzed the admissibility of the expert opinion offered by the Commission in the President’s Order calling for a hearing and rejected said offer of evidence.17 V PRIOR CONSIDERATION 27. The State filed an objection to the inclusion of certain family members of Mr. Álvarez as presumed victims in the case. The Court will consider the observations made by the State and the representatives and will rule accordingly. A. Arguments of the State, observations of the representatives 28. The State argued that the Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the facts related to new victims added by the presumed victim in his brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. In particular, it held that the direct family members of Mr. Tulio Álvarez should be excluded, given that they were not specifically mentioned in the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission, and are therefore not included in the factual framework of the dispute. 29. The Commission did not submit observations in this regard. 30. The representatives argued that the measure barring Mr. Álvarez from leaving the country and his disqualification from holding public office had the effects of self-censorship, intimidation, persecution for political reasons, judicial harassment and criminalization of Mr. Álvarez, all of which had a psychological impact not only on himself but also on members of his family. This fact was corroborated by the testimonies of his mother and his wife, and by the statement of the expert witness Claudia Carillo. The representatives subsequently requested that the reparations include a sum for his wife and daughters for moral damage. B. Considerations of the Court Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008, para. 39; Case Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019, Series C, No. 375, para. 20. 15 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000, Series C, No. 67, para. 34; and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018, Series C, No. 374, para. 21. 16 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009, Series C, No. 193, paras. 16 and 17. 17 Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 21, 2018. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/alvarez_21_06_18.pdf. 14 7