8. Observations on the preliminary objections. – On May 19, 2021, the representatives submitted their observations on the State’s preliminary objections. The Commission presented its observations the following day. 9. Public hearing. – On December 13, 2021,7 the President of the Court called the parties and the Commission to a public hearing, which took place by video conference on February 11, 2022 during the Court’s 146th Regular Session.8 10. Final written arguments and observations. – On March 11, 2022, the representatives and the State submitted their final written arguments, to which they attached documents, and the Commission presented its final written observations. On March 26, 2022, the representatives offered their observations on the State’s documents. On March 29, 2022, the Commission indicated that it had no observations on those documents. 11. Evidence and information to facilitate adjudication of the case. – On March 31, 2022, the Commission requested that the State provide evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case.9 On April 8, 2022, the State presented that documentation (infra para. 62). On April 26, the representatives submitted their observations and, on April 28, the Commission stated that it had no observations to make on the documentation. 12. Deliberations on this case. – On October 3 and 4, 2022, by virtual means, the Court deliberated this judgment at its 152nd Regular Session. III JURISDICTION 13. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, inasmuch as Peru ratified the Convention on July 12, 1978 and accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on January 21, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 14. Peru presented six procedural issues. The Court will now analyze those dealing with the following preliminary objections: A) the request of control of legality on the procedure followed by the Commission; B) the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies; C) the alleged lack of the Court’s competence to act as a fourth instance; D) the alleged inadmissibility of the complaint for the lack of an object, and E) the alleged lack of the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the alleged violation of Article 26 of the Convention. The Court will analyze the other issue in the chapter on the preliminary question (infra paras. 50-59). 7 Cf. Case of Benites Cabrera et al. v. Peru. Call to a public hearing. Resolution of the President, dated December 13, 2021. Appearing at the public hearing for the Commission were Marisol Blanchard, Jorge Meza Flores and Erick Acuña Pereda; for the alleged victims: Javier Antonio Mujica Petit, Norma Inés Ferreyra Guerra, Elizabeth Elisa Ledesma Rojas and Edwin Alfonso Espinoza Chávez; and for the State: Carlos Miguel Reaño Balarezo, Judith Córdova Alva and Dévora Silva Ipince. 8 The State was requested to provide the following documents: (1) Decree-Law 25438, published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on April 20, 1992; (2) Decree-Law 25640, published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on July 24, 1992; (3) Decree-Law 25759, published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on October 8, 1992; (4) Law 30484 and (5) Law 31218 of June 16, 2021. 9 6