12 procedural presumptions jurisdiction.32 on which it substantiates the possibility to exercise its 35. The Court verified that during the proceedings before the Commission, the representatives argued the alleged violation of Article IX of the CIDFP.33 In this sense they referred to the reservation made by the State, expressing that it “frustrate[d] the object and purpose of that Convention; additionally[, it would] prevent this instrument from complement[ing] the national legislation in [this] subject,”34 and they requested from the Commission that “it request that the State of Mexico withdraw the reservation and the interpretative declaration made to the [CIDFP], because it transgresses [its] object and purpose […].”35 In this sense, in its Report on Admissibility, the Commission admitted the petition filed, “with regard to the facts denounced and regarding Articles […] I, III, IX, XI, and XIX [of the mentioned Convention],”36 even though in the Merits Report it considered that “it [was not] necessary to go on the record regarding the alleged violations to Articles I, II, III, IX, XI, and XIX of the [CIDFP].”37 Based on the aforementioned, this Court considers that during the processing of the case before the Commission, the State had the opportunity to present its arguments in this sense and, before this Tribunal it has not proven a detriment to its right to a defense in that sense. 36. In what is relevant, the Court considers that the inclusion in the brief of pleadings and motions of the request for the Court to issue a ruling on the alleged nullity of the reservation made by Mexico to the CIDFP is linked to the alleged violation of that provision. On its part, the State has had the opportunity to present its defense arguments regarding those requests before this Tribunal. 37. Based on the previous considerations the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. 38. Finally, the Tribunal observes that in its final written arguments, the State invoked the “[l]ack of exhaustion of domestic remedies in order to appeal the nullity of the reservation presented by Mexico to Article IX of the CIDFP.” In this sense, in indicated that “[s]ince the [representatives had] introduce[d] a new aspect to the litis, the State of Mexico ha[d] the possibility to invoke the rule of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies.” Regarding this request, it is enough to repeat that pursuant with Article 38(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court “the preliminary objections may only be presented in the respondent’s plea.” Thus, this Tribunal cannot consider that request, since it is time-barred. 32 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 29; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 40, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 35. 33 Cf. Brief forwarded by the petitioners to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on January 05, 2006 (Dossier of appendixes to the application, Appendix 1(24), folios 329 through 333). 34 Cf. Relevant Parts of the brief of June 18, 2002 forwarded by the petitioners to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (dossier of appendixes to the application, Appendix 1(4), folio 144). 35 Cf. Brief forwarded by the petitioners to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on January 05, 2006 (dossier of appendixes to the application, Appendix 1(24), folio 431). 36 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 65/05 of October 12, 2005 (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 2, folio 56). 37 44). Cf. Report on Merits No. 65/05 of July 27, 2007 (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 1, folio