annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives, and the Commission stated that it had no observations regarding the annexes to the final written arguments presented by the parties. 14. Deliberation of the instant case. The Court began deliberation of this judgment in a virtual session held on January 23, 2023, during the Court’s 155th Regular Session. III. JURISDICTION 15. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, given that Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of this Court on December 16, 1998. Furthermore, Mexico ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “ICPPT”) on February 11, 1987, and deposited the instrument of ratification on June 22, 1987. IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 16. In the case sub judice, the State filed five preliminary objections, two of which will be analyzed in this chapter in the following order: a) preliminary objection regarding international res judicata, and b) preliminary objection regarding failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The three remaining objections will be analyzed as preliminary considerations (infra Chapter V). A. Preliminary objection regarding international res judicata A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 17. The State referred to Opinion 66/2017 of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (hereinafter “WGAD”), adopted on October 16, 2017. It held that the facts and the active and passive subjects of the instant case are the same as those contemplated in that proceeding. It added that, in response to the WGAD’s request to take steps to remedy the situation of Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar, on August 23, 2019, they were released following a decision to commute the precautionary measure of pretrial detention to one of restricted release. Based on the foregoing, it argued that the Court should not examine the violations alleged in the instant case, since they were settled by another international mechanism. 18. In response to this preliminary objection, the Commission and the representatives argued that the mandates of the WGAD differ from those of the Inter-American System, that the facts and violations covered are dissimilar, and that the nature of the decisions of both organs is different, since the Court’s judgments are binding. They also argued that there are various factual and legal aspects raised by the alleged victims that are not included in the WGAD’s decision. Furthermore, they indicated that the Merits Report identified several violations of the alleged victims’ rights that occurred after the WGAD issued Opinion 66/2017 which, therefore, were not analyzed by that body. A.2. Considerations of the Court 19. With respect to the preliminary objection regarding international res judicata, the Court recalls that Article 47(d) of the American Convention establishes that: “[t]he Commission shall declare inadmissible any petition or communication presented in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 when: […] d) the petition or communication is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” This Court has established that the -8-