4 10. On March 30, 2009, the Court received a writ of amicus curiae from the Civil Rights Association (ADC).7 It was alleged therein that the “criminal judgment imposed on Mr. Usón Ramírez by the [Venezuelan] judicial authorities was against his right to be tried on the basis of existing “law” at the time and his right to freedom of expression, set forth in Articles 9 and 13, respectively, of the American Convention.” 11. On April 1, 2009, a public hearing was held within the framework of the XXXVIII Extraordinary Sessions Period of the Court, in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.8 12. On May 11, 2009, the Commission and the State submitted their respective final allegations, and on May 14, 2009, the representatives did the same. 13. On August 13, 2009, the President of the Court requested the representatives submit any receipts and evidence of the expenses incurred in the processing of the present case. On August 20, 2009, the representatives submitted the evidence requested by the President. On September 17, 2009, the Commission indicated that it did not have any observations to make on the alleged expenses incurred by the representatives in the processing of this case. On the date of this Judgment, the State had not submitted any observations thereof. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 14. In its answer to the application, the State challenged the admissibility of the application on the basis that the alleged “victim [had] not filed and exhausted the motions under its domestic legislation, before resorting to the Inter-American system for protection.” Specifically, the State argued that the alleged victim “at no time had used the possibility or requested the Court grant the power enshrined in Article 304 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedural, namely, the motion to review the grounds expressed by the prosecutor to enact the reservation [in the brief] and ask for its conclusion.” Likewise, the State alleged that the alleged victim had not exhausted the domestic remedies before filing a petition with the Commission on May 20, 2005, since at that time there was still an opportunity to submit a motion to review the guilty verdict, “according to Articles 470, 471, and 477 of the Criminal Procedure Rule.” The State highlighted that Mr. Usón filed the appeal for reconsideration on April 17, 2006, (with similar content to the original petition before the Commission), a month after the Commission declared, in its admissibility report, that Mr. Usón had complied with the requirement of exhausting the domestic remedies. Therefore, since the domestic remedies had not been exhausted before applying to the Inter-American system, the State alleged that the Court was not competent to render a judgment in this case. 15. The State also alleged that it filed the preliminary objection of an alleged lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies in a timely manner at the opportune procedural moment. The State pointed out that on September 13, 2005, before the Commission issued its admissibility report on March 15, 2006, the State had already informed that Mr. Usón had not informed the First Military Tribunal for the Execution of Judgments about his 7 Alejandor Carrio, presented said brief in his capacity as President of the Association of Civil Rights (ADC), with the “legal sponsorship” of Hernán Gullco and Alejandro E. Segarra.. 8 The following people were present in the public hearing: a) from the Inter-American Commission: the Commissioner Paolo Carozza, as a representative, and the special rapporteur for Freedom of Expression in the Americas, Mrs. Catalina Botero, as well as Mrs. Lilly Ching Soto and Mr. Juan Pablo Alban and Carlos Zelada, as advisors; b) for the representatives: Mr. Héctor Faúndez Ledesma, Claudio Grossman, and Mrs. Agustina of Campo, and c) for the State: Mr. German Saltrón Negretti, Agent, and Mr. Gilberto Venere Vásquez.