8 26. Lastly, according to Article 62(3) of the Convention, “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention, provided that the States parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” Therefore, the Court has competence to examine the alleged failure to comply with Article 28 of the Convention, irrespective of its juridical nature, whether it is a general obligation, a right, or a norm of interpretation. Based on the above, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. C) Failure to exhaust domestic judicial remedies 27. The State alleged, in general, that the representatives did not comply with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies before resorting to the interAmerican system. In this regard, it indicated that: (i) the mandado de segurança was not the appropriate remedy to halt the alleged human rights violations, but rather habeas corpus; (ii) once the alleged victims chose to file the mandado de segurança, they should have exhausted the ordinary constitutional remedy (recurso ordinário constitucional) in order to challenge the ruling that extinguished the mandado de segurança without examining its merits; (iii) given the extinction of the mandado de segurança, they could have filed an ordinary action requesting a declaration that the evidence had been obtained illegally and also the destruction of the tapes, but they did not do so, and (iv) the alleged victims did not exhaust the domestic remedies in relation to the presumed violations of the rights to freedom of association and to honor and dignity. The State also affirmed that the criminal action concerning the dissemination of the recorded conversations was processed in accordance with due legal process and within a reasonable time, so that the Court would be acting as a fourth review instance if it examined the merits of the case. The State indicated that it had submitted these arguments during the admissibility phase before the Commission. It affirmed that the principle of estoppel had no bearing on the instant case and that the Court could examine the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this regard, the State asked the Court to decide that it was unable to examine the merits of the application. 28. The Court has developed criteria to examine the objection based on failure to comply with the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies.18 Regarding the formal aspect, given that this objection is a defense available to the State, procedural questions must be verified, such as the procedural moment at which the objection was filed; the facts about which it was filed, and whether the interested party has indicated that the admissibility decision was based on erroneous information or on an aspect that infringed the right to defense. Regarding the material presumptions, the Court will examine whether domestic remedies were filed and exhausted in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law; particularly, whether the State filing the objection specified the domestic remedies that were not exhausted, and the State must demonstrate that those remedies were available and were adequate, appropriate and effective. Since this question relates to the admissibility of a petition before the inter-American system, the premises underlying this rule must be verified, even though the analysis of the formal premises prevails over those of a material nature and, at certain times, the latter may be related to the merits of the case.19 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 88; Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 37, and Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 42. 19 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 91; Case of Ríos et al., supra note 18, para. 37, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 42.