case and Petition P-668-09 Leonardo Ariel Rosales et al., being processed before the Commission, or some common aspects, the State had not explained why the Court must refuse to hear this case. The representative also argued that the purpose of the opportunity given to the representatives of the presumed victims to submit their own arguments is to make their procedural right of locus standi in judicio, recognized in the Court's Rules of Procedure, effective. A.2. Considerations of the Court 25. The State is using these preliminary objections to challenge pleadings made by the representative that supposedly exceed the factual framework submitted by the InterAmerican Commission in its Merits Report. Thus, the State’s arguments seek a determination of the factual framework of the case. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are acts that seek to prevent the analysis of the merits of a matter in dispute by objecting to the admissibility of a case or the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any of its aspects, based on either the person, the subject matter, the time or the place, provided that these assertions are of a preliminary nature. 14 If these assertions cannot be considered without a prior analysis of the merits of the case, they cannot be analyzed by means of a preliminary objection. 15 In this case, the Court finds that it is inappropriate to rule in a preliminary manner on the factual framework of the case, given that this analysis corresponds to the merits (infra paras. 57 to 61). Thus, the arguments submitted by the State when filing these preliminary objections will be considered at the appropriate procedural moment. B. Preliminary objection arguing the existence of international res judicata B.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 26. The State indicated that the arguments of the Commission and the representative about the detention conditions of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández in the Mendoza Prison, as well as the death of the latter, should not be taken into account by the Court, because they substantially reproduce a previous petition that the Inter-American Commission had examined under case No. 12,532, Inmates of the Mendoza Prisons. It affirmed that the said case concluded with a friendly settlement agreement signed by the petitioners and the State, dated August 28, 2007, approved by Provincial Decree No. 2740 and ratified by Provincial Law No. 7930 of September 16, 2008, in compliance with section B.2.D of the settlement agreement. The friendly settlement agreement was endorsed by the Inter-American Commission on October 12, 2007, and this was recorded in Report No. 84/11 of July 21, 2011, adopted pursuant to the provisions of Article 49 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Argentina also argued that, under the friendly settlement agreement, the government of the province of Mendoza had accepted its responsibility for the detention conditions in the Mendoza Prisons, as well as for the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, because it had failed to guarantee the minimum conditions of safety, custody and physical integrity of the inmates; it had also assumed its responsibility for the facts and their legal consequences. The State also indicated that, under the friendly settlement agreement, the province of Mendoza had 14 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 40. 15 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 40. 13