F. Extemporaneous submission of the petitions of Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7), Manuel Hernández Quesada (Group 6), Guillermo Rodríguez Silva and Martín Rojas Hernández (Group 5) F.1. Arguments the parties and the Commission 117. The State filed a preliminary objection ratione temporis alleging that the petitions of Manuel Hernández Quesada, Miguel Mora Calvo, Guillermo Rodríguez Silva and Martín Rojas Hernández should be declared inadmissible because they were submitted to the Commission after the six-month period allowed for their presentation, following notification of the decision that exhausted the remedy, pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 118. The Commission asked the Court to declare inadmissible the preliminary objection ratione temporis, which does not question [the Court’s] temporal jurisdiction, but addresses a different matter, that is, the requirement of timely submission of the petition which is actually an admissibility requirement closely linked to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. It argued that, since the objection of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 46(2) (a) of the Convention had been established, the six-month deadline for submitting the petition after the final decision was not applicable, and therefore the petitions were submitted within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 119. The common interveners Factum Consorcio did not present observations. 120. The Inter-American Defenders explained that the State confused the objection ratione temporis with the untimeliness of the petition. In this regard, they argued that the State’s allegation is erroneous and untimely inasmuch as it made the same allegation before the Commission and the latter, in Admissibility Report 105/11, made it clear that the analysis of the temporality of said petitions was carried out based on the exception of reasonableness, pursuant to Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention. Finally, they noted that the State has not expressed any opposition to the reasonableness of Article 46(1) of the Convention and referred to the vulnerability and state of defenselessness in which the alleged victims would find themselves, given that the State had not personally notified each of them of the final decision on their appeals or special review procedure. They pointed out that because the alleged victims were – and remain – deprived of their liberty, they are vulnerable persons in accordance with the 100 Brasilia Rules, and the institutions that administer justice have an obligation to ensure they have efficient and effective access to judicial protection. However, the State assumes that the notifications to the offices or facsimiles of the attorneys are sufficient to consider the end of a proceeding or res judicata as having been notified. In the hearing on preliminary objections, they indicated that in the absence of a remedy consistent with Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, the alleged victims were not obliged to calculate the six-month time limit for submitting their petitions before the Commission. 121. The SIPDH representatives pointed out that the State refers to the preliminary objection ratione temporis as one which would be a question of untimely presentation of the petition, an allegation that it did not expressly and clearly invoke at the appropriate procedural moment before the Commission. F.2. Considerations of the Court 122. First, this Court recalls that the objection ratione temporis refers to its competence to rule on violations that occurred after the date on which the State recognized its jurisdiction 44