or on those that had not ceased on that date. 161 Consequently, the objection raised by the State does not pertain to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis, but refers to the alleged untimeliness of the presentation of the petitions of Guillermo Rodríguez, Martín Rojas, Miguel Mora Calvo and Manuel Hernández Quesada, outside the six-month period stipulated in Article 46(1) (b) of the Convention. 123. In this regard, the Court recalls that it upheld the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to the alleged victims Guillermo Rodríguez Silva and Martín Rojas Hernández, of Group 5 (supra para. 50). Therefore, the State’s objection with regard to these persons has become moot and the Court will not rule on the matter. 124. Furthermore, the Court has indicated that the conditions of admissibility of petitions (Articles 44 to 46 of the American Convention) constitute a guarantee that assures the parties the exercise of their right of defense in the proceedings, 162 having a preclusive nature in those cases in which the Commission deals with admissibility and merits separately. 163 As for Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7), the case file does not show that the State has raised this objection in any of the briefs submitted during the admissibility stage, 164 and therefore the Court dismisses this objection with respect to this person. 125. With regard to Manuel Hernández Quesada (Group 6), the case file shows that the State submitted the objection in a timely manner, on December 9, 2008, during the admissibility stage before the Commission. 165 It is also on record that the alleged victim filed an appeal in cassation against his conviction, which was decided on November 28, 2003, and notified on January 26, 2004. 166 His petition was lodged before the Commission on May 24, 2005, 167 that is, one year and four months later, outside the established six-month period. 126. In this regard, both the Commission and the representatives argued that based on Article 46(2) (a) of the Convention, and in view of the judgment in the case Herrera Ulloa regarding the ineffectiveness of the remedy of cassation, the six-month period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention was not applicable and, therefore, they asked the Court to dismiss the objection. 127. On this point the Court confirms that in the case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica it was determined that: Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, paras. 66 and 67, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paras. 24 and 25. 162 Cf. Case of Grande v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 231, Para. 56, Case Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 60 163 Cf. Case of Grande v. Argentina, supra, para. 56 and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 60. 164 With respect to the petition of Miguel Mora Calvo, during the admissibility stage the State filed briefs on December 8, 2008, April 22, 2009, August 10, 2009, September 15, 2010 and January 25, 2011. In its first brief of December 8, 2008, the State asked the Commission “to declare inadmissible the petition submitted by Mr. Miguel Mora Calvo, since it does not meet the requirements of admissibility, due to failure to exhaust the domestic remedies in Costa Rica, pursuant to Articles 46(1)(a), and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 30, 31 and related articles of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; and furthermore, because the facts described do not constitute a violation of the human rights protected by the American Convention.” The State reiterated this position during the admissibility proceedings in the case, and there is no record that in any of its briefs submitted it has alleged that the presentation of Mr. Mora Calvo's petition was extemporaneous due to the failure to comply with the six-month period indicated in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. (evidence file, folios 6005, 6027, 6147, 6177, 6309 and 6330). 165 Regarding the petition of Manuel Hernández Quesada, in the admissibility stage the State filed briefs on December 9, 2008, September 24, 2009, January 25, 2010, September 15, 2010 and February 18, 2011 (evidence file, folios 5728 to 5750, 5615, 5590, 5556 and 5417). 166 Cf. Electronic notification slip (evidence file, folio 35433). 167 Cf. Brief of July 8, 2005 (evidence file, folio 5946). 161 45