the parties and the Commission to submit certain documentation and explanations to facilitate adjudication of the case.11 12. Moreover, the Court received amici curiai briefs from the Programa de Acción por la Igualdad y la Inclusión Social (PAIIS, Action Program for Equality and Social Inclusion), from the Faculty of Law of the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia12 and from Mr. Ezekiel Heffes. 13. On March 28, 2012 the representatives and the State submitted their closing written arguments and the Inter-American Commission presented its final written observations on this case. Likewise, on that occasion the parties responded to the Court’s request for information, documentation and explanations to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 11). These briefs were notified to the parties, who were given a deadline to submit the pertinent observations. These observations were presented by the representatives and the Inter-American Commission on April 27 and May 4, 2012, respectively. The State did not submit observations to the information and documentation provided by the representatives. 14. On May 16, 2012, following the instructions of the President, the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court asked the State to submit its observations regarding the file on expenses of the Legal Assistance Fund. The State submitted two requests for a deferment to submit said observations, both of which were granted. However, the State did not forward these observations. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 15. The Court deems it necessary to reiterate that, like any body with judicial functions, it has the inherent power to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction (compétence de la compétence).13 Accordingly, the Court will analyze the admissibility of the preliminary objections filed in the order in which they were raised (supra para.7). A) “Preliminary objection to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies” Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 16. The State held that “the domestic remedies were not exhausted in relation to the method of payment of the judgment.” First, it indicated that the preliminary objection 11 The following documentation or explanations were requested, inter alia: 1) information regarding the types of medical and psychological treatment provided to Sebastián Furlan and his family: 2) information regarding the legal obligations and powers of judges in relation to intervention of the Office for Juvenile Assistance; 3) legal effects of the Juvenile Defense Counsel not intervening in a process involving minors; 4) information on the domestic law applicable to determine the filing of a complaint and to determine ownership of a property, 5) information on the concept of informative evidence, process of notice of suit, determination stage of the defendant, burden of proof and expediting of civil proceedings, system of communications and notifications; 6) information on systems for the payment of compensation existing in Argentina at the time of the facts and currently; 7) information on the final amount of compensation, the process of purchase and sale of bonds, transaction receipts from the sale of the bonds, and 8) information on the availability of resources that would enable Sebastian Furlan to claim the total amount of his indemnity and the role of the Minors Defense Counsel in this regard. 12 The brief was presented by Andrea Parra, Director of PAIIS, and Diego Felipe Caballero Naranjo, María José Montoya Lara and Sebastián Rodríguez Alarcón, law students who are members of PAIIS. 13 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections. Order of November 23, 2004, Series C No. 118 para. 74, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Order of February 27, 2012, Series C. No. 240, para. 64. 7