14 the case, after the adoption of the Report on Admissibility. In such communication, the State did not specify the domestic remedies the alleged victims should have exhausted; neither had it expressly alleged the failure to exhaust such remedies; the State just limited to mention, in general terms, in an exhibit to the communication, that the 50º Plenipotentiary Prosecutor would have initiated some actions. 44. Therefore, the Court verifies that the State did not raise such preliminary objection until after the adoption of the Report on Admissibility by the Commission, by means of a brief filed during the stage on the merits. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State failed to raise such objection at the appropriate procedural moment; therefore, the Court rejects the forth preliminary objection raised by the State. 45. The Court cannot consider the arguments put forward by the State in the final written allegations regarding this objection, which do not complement those initially offered, for being untimely presented. With respect the rest of the arguments exposed by the State and the representatives, only those that are closely related to the merits of the case, shall be considered, where appropriate, in the following chapters. VI PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS A) Alleged victims 46. The representatives stated that Mr. José Domingo Blanco was excluded from being an alleged victim in the application due to a "material error", but that he must be considered as such, in relation to a series of alleged facts. They noted that Mr. Blanco appears as one of the petitioners and alleged victims in the Reports on Admissibility and Merits of the Commission. 47. The Court verifies that, in effect, in the application lodged by the Commission, Mr. José Domingo Blanco appears as one of the original petitioners in the processing of the case before the Commission and that he has been included as one of the victims in the Report on Merits. Nevertheless, the Commission itself has pointed out in the application that [On] March 26, 2007 the petitioners told the Commission that Mr. José Domingo had left the Globovisión television channel in April 2001. The incidents described in the “considerations of law” section of this application and on the basis of which the Report on Merits was adopted in the case at hand, began in November 2001. Consequently, even though he was named as an alleged victim in the original complaint, the Commission understands that he should not be considered as such. 48. The Court further notes that the facts mentioned by the representatives regarding this person are not contained in the application and that, in spite of the request made by the representatives, nor the Commission or the State has rendered a decision to such effect during this proceeding. As a consequence, the Court understands that his person is not an alleged victim to this case. * * * 49. Furthermore, the representatives alleged that the relatives of the alleged victims “have to be considered victims as well”, since they have suffered a “considerable nonpecuniary damage”; therefore they requested that some of the next-of-kin be considered