7 IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 15. The State asked the Court to review the legality of the Commission’s Admissibility Report and raised the following six “procedural questions”: a) “Review of legality of the IACHR Admissibility Report in this case”: The State asked the Court to exercise its authority to review the Commission’s omissions in relation to the failure to verify the time limit for filing the petition pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. It indicated that the Commission had considered October 14, 1993, as the date of Mr. Lagos del Campo’s petition, despite the fact that this had been delivered to the offices of the Organization of American States in Peru on August 5, 1998, thus violating the principles of legal certainty and procedural fairness. In addition, the State considered that the verification made by the Commission was contrary to the procedural rules with regard to compliance with the six months’ time frame for the admissibility of the petition, in relation to the alleged violations of the right to freedom of expression and the right to be heard. Consequently, it asked the Court to determine how the Commission should proceed in similar circumstances, and to declare that the action of the IACHR was not in keeping with the procedural rules and its competencies, and that the petition should have been rejected. b) “Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the allegation of the failure to state the reasons for the legal decisions.” The State argued that the Commission had made an incomplete or partial evaluation of the admissibility of the petition in relation to compliance with the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies, and that the reasons why the Commission considered that this requirement had been complied with had been developed insufficiently, without explaining the connection between the remedies filed and the content of the alleged violations. In this regard, it asked the Court to analyze whether the judicial decision taken into account by the Commission as the final remedy exhausted by the petitioner had really sought to reverse each and every violation of the rights alleged in the petition lodged before the Inter-American Commission. The State submitted this aspect to the Court because it considered that clarity and transparency should exist in the criteria used by the Commission to admit petitions, regardless of whether the State had alleged the matter at the opportune procedural moment. c) “Observations on the undue inclusion of Article 16 in the IACHR Merits Report.” The State alleged that the Commission had admitted the petition with regard to Articles 8 and 13 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention but that, in the Merits Report, it had unduly included presumed violations of Article 16(1) of the Convention. It indicated that, neither in the facts of the case submitted by the petitioners, nor in the documents they had provided, was there any mention that, owing to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the resulting alleged arbitrary dismissal of Mr. Lagos del Campo, had his freedom of association been violated. Consequently, the State alleged that it had never had the opportunity to submit arguments on this aspect, and this constituted a violation of its right to defend itself. Accordingly, it asked the Court to reject the arguments related to the presumed violations of Article 16. d) “Lack of competence of the IACHR to assume the role of fourth instance.” The State argued that the petitioner’s intention had been for the Commission to act as a domestic court with authority to evaluate evidence and facts related to proceedings in the domestic sphere, and this exceeded its competence. It therefore asked the Court to assess the labor