14 Viviana Krsticevic, representative; Alejandra Nuño, representative; Roxanna Altholz, representative; Arturo Requesens, representative; and Fabienne Cabaret, representative. 55. On July 07, 2004, and following the President’s instructions, the Secretariat asked the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin, and the State, in conformity with Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to submit the following documents as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case: a) the decision whereby the revision remedy entered by Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo on January 19, 1998, against the judgment in the amparo appeal hearing handed down on December 02, 1997, by the Fourth Penal Court of the First Circuit, was dismissed as not applicable, and b) a copy of the documents pertaining to such actions under preliminary investigation SC/3839/95-03 started by the Prosecutorial Agency as were performed after March 17, 2003 and up to the date of said communication (July 07, 2004). 56. On July 16, 2004, the State delivered a note where it requested “an extension to submit the documentation required,” alleging that the Supreme Court went “on recess.” That same day, and following the President’s instructions, the Secretariat granted an extension up to July 26, 2004, to the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives for submission of the documentation required as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. On July 26, 2004, the State submitted said documentation. That same day the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin informed that, even after several efforts made before state authorities, they were unable to obtain the documents requested. In like manner, on July 16, 2004, the Commission informed that, despite efforts made, it was impossible to obtain copies of the documents requested. V JURISDICTION 57. The Court has jurisdiction, in the terms set forth in Article 62(3) of the Convention, to hear the two preliminary objections brought by the State in the instant case, by virtue of the fact that Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. Additionally, Mexico has been a State Party to the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture since June 22, 1987. VI PELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 58. At this point the Court feels it is necessary to refer to several facts relative to the instant case, for consideration of the preliminary objections brought by the State, concerning the domestic penal proceedings, the preliminary investigations carried out by the Distrito Federal Attorney General’s Office, and the procedure before the Inter-American Commission: 58.1 It is appropriate, concerning preliminary investigation 10ª/2160/92-05 and the penal proceedings before the courts in Mexico to point out the following: