presumed victims’ access to inter-American justice, which would run counter to the essential purpose of the inter-American system to promote the observance and defense of human rights. Therefore, this Court rejects this preliminary objection. B. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 43. In its answering brief of June 22, 2012, the State indicated that a decision was pending on a “special appeal on unconstitutionality” filed by the presumed victims requesting the annulment of their convictions “as a result of the enactment of Law 26,551.” On July 4, 2012, it was declared that this appeal had been granted erroneously. Following this decision, in its oral arguments during the hearing, and in its final written arguments, the State argued that the presumed victims should have filed an appeal for review and not a special appeal on unconstitutionality, which it was declared had been granted erroneously. In addition, taking advantage of the right to a rejoinder during the said hearing, the State indicated that, “what Mr. Mémoli should have done [was] to present an appeal for review, including a plea regarding the unconstitutionality of the limits established in the Code of Criminal Procedure with regards to reviews.” Despite this, Argentina stressed that, following the decision of July 4, 2012, “the special federal appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation was available,” although it had no record that it had been filed by Messrs. Mémoli. The State explained that the presentation of the special appeal on unconstitutionality “qualified as a new act,” so that “in order to guarantee [its] right of defense in the international sphere adequately,” it had made this argument before the current procedural instance. In addition, it indicated that the preliminary objection was filed “subsidiarily, for the hypothetical case that [the facts denounced by the presumed victims] are considered to be [of public interest].” 44. The representatives indicated that they had exhausted “all the remedies to access first the [Commission] and then this [Court].” In this regard they argued that the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires had already decided that “the [appeal] on unconstitutionality was inadmissible and [that] even if it examined the [appeal] for review, this was not admissible either,” and that article “2 of the Criminal Code on the most favorable law” was not admissible either. They underscored that “there are many restrictions to obtain access to the [Supreme] Court [of Justice of the Nation].” They also indicated that requiring them to continue appealing would “not only be a legal absurdity, but also […] a callous requirement that violated the American Convention” and, in this regard, they indicated that it would be contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem. 45. The Commission noted that “[t]he supervening procedural situations [occurred] prior to the submission [of the case] to the Inter-American Court, as a result of amendments to the law. This situation does not have the effect of modifying, retroactively, compliance with the admissibility requirements,” because “the issue of the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been precluded.” In this regard, it indicated that “[t]here is no basis in the Convention or the Rules of Procedure for the Inter-American Court to be able to analyze the failure to exhaust supervening domestic remedies based on information provided after the Commission’s Admissibility Report. Furthermore, this proposition has no legal basis and would result in legal uncertainty and imbalance in the system of petitions and cases to the detriment of the victims.” Despite this, “these new circumstances may be taken into account when evaluating the reparations that would be pertinent for the situation that exists when the judgment is delivered.” B.2) Considerations of the Court 19