- 14 - 33. Although the Commission did not rule on the State’s request concerning the specific facts that were part of both cases during the merits procedure, its answer was implicit when it decided, in exercise of its mandate, to examine the context in which the facts occurred contrary to a proposal of one of the parties to the proceedings, in this case, the State. In this regard, the State’s conditioned acceptance of the severance of this case was not binding on the Commission as to the way it conducted the proceedings. The State was aware of the facts on which the case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas was based, as well as the context in which it is alleged they occurred, from the time it was detached from the case of the UP. Consequently, the State has not proved to this Court that its right to defense was violated. 34. Lastly, the State itself indicated that the purpose of its first two preliminary objections was to prevent the Court from examining the facts of the case of the UP (supra para. 24), and that “it is not its inflexible intention” that its claims be decided using the legal mechanism of the preliminary objection; therefore, it “trusts that the Court will use the most appropriate [means …] to limit the facts on which the instant case is based.” In other words, the issue that remains to be decided is whether preliminary objections are the appropriate procedural mechanism to decide the State’s claim. 35. It has been the Court’s constant criterion that a preliminary objection questions the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a specific case or any of its aspects based on the person, the matter, the time or the place.32 Hence, in the terms of Article 79(9) of the Rules of Court (1978) of the International Court of Justice, the objection must possess “an exclusively preliminary character”; this means that it can potentially impede the continuation of the proceedings or a decision on the merits. Thus, irrespective of whether a contention is described as a “preliminary objection,” it must have the juridical characteristics, as regards its content and purpose, that accord it this character of a preliminary defense. Allegations that are not of this nature, such as those that refer to the merits of a case, may be formulated by means of other procedural acts established in the American Convention, but not using this mechanism.33 36. First, it should be noted that the Court is unaware of the current arguments, presumed victims or facts of case 11,227, so that it could not prejudge them or determine to what extent the Commission would do so. In reality, the opinion formed on one case does not prejudge others when the beneficiaries of the rights are different, even though the violations are the same.34 The instant case refers to the violations of the rights of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas and his next of kin in relation to his execution; therefore they cannot be detached in limine litis from their context, the relevance of which the Court must decide at the merits stage of the case, based on the arguments and the evidence provided by the parties. Even though specific or contextual facts are mentioned in this case that correspond also to the case of the UP, their existence, assessment or relevance will be decided solely on the basis of the evidence provided by the parties in this case. This cannot imply any prejudgment of 32 Cf. Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 25, para. 17, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 25, para. 15. 33 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States, supra note 28, para. 39; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 25, para. 17, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 25, para. 15. 34 Cf. Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, paras. 45 to 49; Case of the Saramaka People. v. Suriname, supra note 29, paras. 47 and 48, and Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 53.