15. In the case sub judice, the State presented the following preliminary objections: a) the Court’s lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis over facts prior to the date of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, and b) the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, which will be analyzed in that order. The State also presented as a preliminary objection “the lack of jurisdiction ratione personae in relation to the victims not listed in the Commission’s Report.” Subsequently, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that this argument corresponded, in reality, to a matter prior to the analysis of the merits. The Court notes that, in accordance with its constant case law, this argument does not constitute a preliminary objection, since its analysis cannot result in the inadmissibility of the case or in the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear it. Therefore, the Court will examine this matter in the following chapter as a prior consideration.15 A. Alleged lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis over facts prior to the date of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 16. The State asked the Court to declare its lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis with respect to the alleged human rights violations that occurred prior to December 10, 1998. Specifically, it argued that the Inter-American Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis only to examine alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in proceedings initiated after December 10, 1998. In this sense, it argued that only possible violations linked to judicial proceedings initiated after the date indicated in its declaration of acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction would be subject to the Court's jurisdiction, so that “criminal proceedings initiated before the established time limit, even if they continue after that date, cannot be invoked.” 17. The representatives pointed out that, under the terms of Brazil’s acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, “the Court has jurisdiction to examine all the facts that occurred after December 10, 1998, even if their execution began prior to that date.” They also noted that, after that date, “several separate events occurred within the context of the judicial proceedings that violated the rights of the [alleged] victims […].” 18. The Commission observed that, taking into account that Brazil acceded to the American Convention years before it accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, the temporal jurisdiction of the Court is more limited than that of the Commission when it analyzed the instant case. It noted that an act which occurred before the date of ratification of the Court's jurisdiction should not be excluded from consideration when it may be relevant to the determination of what happened. Thus, it emphasized that the Court has jurisdiction to rule on facts that would have resulted in the State’s alleged responsibility for the situation of impunity surrounding the death of the alleged victim and the alleged violations of the rights of her next of kin, as well as to examine the circumstances surrounding the death of Márcia Barbosa insofar as they are relevant as background for the legal consequences deriving from her death for the State in terms of its duty to investigate. In addition, it argued that the Court would also be competent to rule on the alleged omissions and shortcomings in the initial proceedings, since these could have had legal effects with respect to the State’s obligations in the conduct of the investigation and the alleged situation of impunity surrounding the act. Cf. Case of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 387, para. 18, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 16. 15 -8-