concerning access to justice, in this case, the Court does not find it pertinent to examine the arguments related to the obligation to ensure the right to humane treatment (in relation to torture, “political imprisonment,” or any other act that began to be executed prior to March 11, 1990), based on Articles 5 and 1(1) of the American Convention. 25 42. Based on the above, and in the terms indicated, the preliminary objection filed by the State is partially rejected. * 43. The Court notes that the arguments submitted by the State did not mention the failure to exhaust domestic remedies 26 in relation to the merits of the case; nor did the State explicitly classify the said arguments as a preliminary objection. Nevertheless, the representatives submitted several arguments concerning the supposed objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies (supra para. 23). 44. The Court finds it pertinent to indicate that, during the proceedings before the Commission, the State did not argue the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 27 According to this Court’s consistent case law, “an objection to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the appropriate procedural stage; namely, during the admissibility proceedings before the Commission.” 28 Therefore, the filing of this objection is not admissible in the proceedings before the Court. Despite this, in view of the fact that the State’s argument does not seek to prevent the Court from hearing the case, but rather was presented by the State in relation to its substantive aspect, it will be assessed by the Court in relation to the merits of the matter in Chapter VII of this Judgment. V EVIDENCE 45. The Court will examine and assess the probative elements provided to the case file, whether documents, testimony or expert opinions, in accordance with the pertinent regulations 29 and its consistent case law, 30 observing the principles of sound judicial 25 The Court ruled similarly when delivering judgment in the case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 39. 26 In this regard, it indicated that “when the presumed victims lodged their petition before the Commission ([on] May [20,] 2002), the Valech Commission had not yet published its report […] (November 28, 2004), so that, in the absence of a denunciation of the facts by the victim, at that date there were no grounds that would have allowed the State […] to be aware of the crimes perpetrated against Leopoldo García [Lucero] and, based on this information, to open ex officio the respective judicial proceedings. In addition, it indicated that Mr. “García [Lucero] has preferred to have direct recourse to the inter-American system, disregarding its subsidiary nature.” 27 The Admissibility Report in this case indicated that “[t]he State did not allege the failure to exhaust domestic remedies […] during the initial stages of the proceedings” before the Commission. Cf. Report No. 58/05. Petition 350/02. Admissibility. Leopoldo García Lucero. Chile. October 12, 2005, para. 43. Available at: www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/20055p/Chile350.02pm.htm 28 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012 Series C No. 259, para. 34. See also, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Grande v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 231, footnote 14, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 114. 29 Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 15