4 victim and two expert witnesses, together with the final oral arguments of the parties on the preliminary objection and the possible merits, reparations and costs.3 7. The public hearing was held on April 29, 2008, during the thirty-third special session of the Court held in Tegucigalpa, Honduras.4 At the conclusion of the hearing, the judges asked the State and the representatives to submit further information on diverse juridical positions noted during the hearing, with their final written arguments. This request was reiterated to the State and to the representatives on May 7, 2008.5 8. After several extensions had been granted, the State submitted a digital copy of the documentation requested as helpful evidence on April 18 and June 17, 2008 (supra para. 6). 9. On July 11, 14 and 15, 2008, the representatives, the Inter-American Commission and the State, respectively, submitted their final written arguments. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Substantial change in the purpose of the application” and failure to exhaust domestic remedies 10. When answering the application filed by the Commission in this case, the State invoked “the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies” (supra para. 5). It alleged that this objection “is based on the evident fact that, in the instant case, there was a substantial change in the procedural purpose of the application filed by the Inter-American Commission,” […] “because the principal violations [alleged therein] had been duly resolved in the State’s domestic jurisdiction” (infra para. 15). In this regard, the State indicated that it considered that the purpose of the proceedings was “limited solely and exclusively to requiring the Court to determine any reparations to which it may find that Mr. Bayarri has a right, even though he has failed to exhaust the judicial remedies available in the domestic sphere” for that purpose. 11. The State alleged that when the Inter-American Commission decided to file the application in this case, “appropriate and effective remedies were available to the petitioner in the domestic jurisdiction and, if they had been filed in due form and time, they would have allowed him to obtain the pecuniary reparation that he is now claiming before the international instance.”6 It added that “it is not necessary to appeal to the jurisdiction of the 3 Cf. Bayarri v. Argentina. Call to a public hearing, supra note 1, fifth operative paragraph. 4 At this hearing, there appeared: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Luz Patricia Mejía, Delegate, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez, adviser; (b) for the alleged victim’s representatives: Carlos A.B. Pérez Galindo and (c) for the State: Jorge Nelson Cardozo, Agent; Alberto Javier Salgado, Deputy Agent; Gonzalo Luis Bueno, Ana Badillos and Pilar Mayoral, legal advisers and Alejandro Aruma, Minister Chargé d’Affaires of the Argentine Embassy in Honduras. 5 The information and documentation requested related to: (a) domestic recourses available for reparation; (b) domestic resources that allow reparations to Mr. Bayarri’s next of kin, as well as reparations of a non-pecuniary nature; (c) an explanation about the procedural delays to which the State subjected the alleged victim; (d) an explanation about the alleged delays in complying with the time limits during the proceedings before the Commission; (e) the specific data used to calculate the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and (f) the medical and pecuniary benefits that Mr. Bayarri has a right to, as a pensioner of the Argentine Federal Police. 6 The State stated that the domestic remedy that Mr. Bayarri should have filed is the action for damages in the administrative jurisdiction, established in articles 330 to 485 of the national Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, whose substantive basis arises from Articles 901 to 906, 1109, 1112 and 1113 of the Civil Code. Cf. the