11. Final written arguments and observations. On April 19, 2020, the presumed victim and the State forwarded their final written arguments and annexures, and the Commission presented its final written observations. On the instructions of the President of the Court, the parties and the Inter-American Commission were asked to submit any considerations they deemed pertinent on the attached documentation submitted by the State and by the presumed victim. On April 26, 2021, the presumed victim submitted her observations. On April 27, 2021, the State ruled, and the Inter-American Commission stated, that it had no observations to make (infra para. 35). 12. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated this judgment in a virtual session, on May 25 and 26 and June 3, 2021.5 III JURISDICTION 13. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, given that Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on July 12, 1978 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 14. In this case, Peru raised three preliminary objections. In this section, the Court will analyze: A) the request for review of legality by the Inter-American Court in relation to the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies; B) the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court to act as a fourth instance; and C) the alleged improper inclusion of Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention in the pleadings and arguments brief. A. Request for review of legality by the inter-American Court in relation to the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies A.1 Arguments of the State, and observations of the Commission and the presumed victim 15. The State requested the Inter-American Court monitor the legality of the Commission's actions regarding the assessment and pronouncement on the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies for having violated the State's right to defense. This request was based on two arguments. First, that the case was not reviewed by the Constitutional Court, and second, that the presumed victim did not question the regulatory framework applied to her and, despite this, the Commission included a violation related to said regulatory framework in the Merits Report. 16. Regarding the first matter, it held that, despite the presumed victim indicating that she had exhausted domestic remedies, Law No. 26435 of 1995, Organic Law of the Constitutional Court established the possibility that the latter heard the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice. Thus, the decision by which domestic remedies had been exhausted could actually have been known in the last and final instance by the Constitutional Court, and this did not occur due to the presumed victim's inaction. Due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID -19 pandemic, this Judgment was deliberated and approved during the 142nd Regular Session, which was held remotely using technological means in accordance with the provisions of the court’s Rules of Procedure. 5 5