10. Alleged supervening facts. On April 8, May 13 and December 23, 2020, the representatives forwarded information on alleged supervening facts.65 11. Final written arguments and observations. On April 12, 2021, the State, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, forwarded their final written arguments and observations with annexes. 12. Observations on the annexes to the final written arguments. On March 14, 2021, the representatives presented their observations on the annexes sent by the State with its final written arguments. 13. Helpful evidence and information. On March 12 and September 14, 2021, the President of the Court asked the State and the representatives to submit helpful documentation. This information was forwarded on April 12 and September 27, 2021, respectively. 14. Deliberation of the case. The Court began deliberating on this judgment in a virtual session on October 12, 2021.66 III JURISDICTION 15. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because El Salvador has been a State Party to this instrument since June 23, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. In addition, the State deposited its instrument ratifying the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belém do Pará” on January 26, 1996. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 16. The State filed three preliminary objections.67 One of them concerned the factual framework of the case. Since this is unrelated to the Court’s jurisdiction and the requirements for the admissibility of the case, it does not constitute a preliminary objection.68 Therefore, it will be analyzed as a preliminary consideration (infra paras. 27 to 30). The other objections will be analyzed as follows: (a) the alleged time-barred presentation of the petition, and (b) the Commission’s alleged failure to assess the progress made in complying with the Merits Report. A. Alleged time-barred presentation of the petition On April 8, 2020, the representatives forwarded “a decision of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.” On May 13, 2020, the representatives reported “acts of vilification, stigmatization and the disclosure of the identity of some of the victims in this case, as well as medical information contained in Manuela’s medical records.” On December 23, 2020, the representatives provided additional evidence related to the context of the case. 65 Owing to the exceptional circumstances resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated on and adopted during the Court’s 145th regular session, which was held virtually using technological means in accordance with the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 66 The Court notes that, in its final written arguments, the State alleged the application of the fourth instance formula. However, that allegation was time-barred. 67 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400, para. 19. 68 11