15 52. The representatives alleged that, according to the Court’s case law, “civil remedies do not need to be exhausted for the petition to be examined by the inter-American system; the criminal action is the appropriate remedy to file charges regarding the responsibility of the agents involved in the violation, but in the absence of an effective criminal procedure, the victims cannot be penalized by requiring them to exhaust remedies that seek compensation in the civil sphere.” * * * 53. The Court reiterates that, for the State to exercise its right to defense, a preliminary objection based on a presumed failure to comply with the exhaustion of domestic remedies should be submitted opportunely (supra para. 28). In the instant case, even though it was able to do so, the State did not allege the failure to exhaust the civil remedies at the due procedural moment; namely before the adoption of Admissibility Report No. 16/06 on March 2, 2006,33 but rather it did so in its brief on the merits of the case presented on November 30, 2006.34 Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State did not present this defense at the opportune procedural moment, so that this preliminary objection must be rejected. IV JURISDICTION 54. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 25, 1992, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. V EVIDENCE 55. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment,35 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties at different procedural opportunities or as helpful evidence requested by the Court, as well as the testimonial statements and expert opinions provided by means of a sworn statement before notary public (affidavit) and during the public hearing before the Court. To this end, it will abide by the principles of judicial discretion within the corresponding normative framework.36 56. Before making this assessment, the Court will examine the State’s allegation that the evidence presented by the representatives in the pleadings and motions brief was timebarred (supra para. 12 to 17). 33 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 18/06 of March 2, 2006, supra note 26, folio 44. 34 Cf. The State’s brief of November 30, 2006, with arguments on merits in case 12,353, supra note 31, folios 722 and 723. 35 Cf. The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 91, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 36. 36 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 35, para. 50; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 91, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 36.