this case did not refer to aspects of trade union rights or education, the Court did not have competence to examine them. 82. The Commission indicated that the State’s arguments were based on the fact that Article 6 of the Convention had not been violated, an aspect that related to the merits of the case. It also observed that, in several cases, the Court had established a connection between certain economic, social and cultural rights and those traditionally known as civil and political rights. 83. The representatives indicated that the State had acknowledged that, in certain circumstances, the Court had analyzed aspects relating to economic, social and cultural rights in order to better analyze the violations of Articles 4, 5 and 19 of the Convention. They also asked the Court to reject this preliminary objection because they had not claimed a specific violation of the Protocol of San Salvador. G.2. Considerations of the Court 84. The Court considers that the possible violation of provisions of the Protocol of San Salvador is not in litigation. Also, whether or not Article 6 of the Convention has been violated corresponds to the examination of the merits and is not a matter for a preliminary objection. Consequently, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. H. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies H.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives 85. The State indicated that an opportunity must be provided to file the domestic remedies aimed at recognizing and redressing the harm caused to the victims. Consequently, the presumed victims or their representatives cannot seek international judicial protection directly without first having recourse to domestic law. Furthermore, the State alleged the existence of domestic remedies that were adequate for the protection of all the rights supposedly violated as well as to obtain all the reparations derived from such violations, and indicated that the representatives could have, and still could, use those domestic remedies, which they have not done to date. 86. The State also requested the Court to declare the case inadmissible with regard to the claims for reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 87. The Commission indicated that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(1) of the Convention was related to the alleged facts that violated human rights. The representatives’ claim regarding the compensation ordered by the Court was subject to the declaration of the responsibility of the State concerned, and constituted an automatic consequence of such responsibility. The Convention did not establish which additional mechanisms had to be exhausted to enable the victims to obtain compensation. The Commission indicated that an obligation to exhaust the remedies, as proposed by the State, not only placed a disproportionate burden on the victims, but would also be contrary to the provisions of the Convention and the raison d’être of both the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies and the mechanism of compensation. It also indicated that the State’s arguments were time-barred because the analysis of the exhaustion of domestic remedies corresponded to the admissibility stage of the case before the Commission. 88. The representatives indicated that the Court had maintained consistently that the proper procedural moment for the State to file a preliminary objection based on failure to 22