14 V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 34. The State filed four “preliminary objections”, namely: i) “failure to exhaust domestic remedies”; ii) “objection ratione materiae in relation to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance and on the classification of the facts in the Report on [Admissibility and] Merits of the [Commission]”; iii) “inadmissibility regarding the formulation of new arguments presented by the representatives and not raised by the Commission in its [Admissibility and] Merits Report: inclusion of Marcelina Guillén Riveros” as alleged victim; and iv) “inadmissibility regarding the formulation of new arguments presented by the representatives and not raised by the Commission in its [Admissibility and] Merits Report: alleged violation of the right to property and the prohibition of arbitrary interference in family life.” 35. Given the nature of the arguments raised by the State, the Court will consider them in the pertinent parts of this judgment. Consequently, it will only consider as preliminary objections those that have - or could have - the status of preliminary objections, that is, objections that are preliminary in nature and tend to prevent the analysis of the merits of a contested matter, by objecting to the admissibility of a case or the competence of the Court to hear a particular case or any of its aspects, whether by reason of the person, subject matter, time or place, provided that such arguments are preliminary in nature. 15 If these matters cannot be considered without first analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be analyzed by means of a preliminary objection. 16 36. Therefore, this chapter will only consider the arguments indicated above under paragraphs i) and ii). The arguments indicated under paragraphs iii) and iv) will be analyzed in the next chapter on preliminary considerations. A. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 37. The State argued that, based on Article 34 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure adopted on April 8, 1980, and Article 46(2) of the Convention, the petition “should have been declared inadmissible by the Inter-American Commission [,] […] because it was filed 21 days after the facts occurred, when the petitioners had not exhausted the mechanisms available to them in the national jurisdiction […].” It also indicated that “from the outset, the petitioners did not respect the subsidiary nature of the supranational protection system,” since they turned to the Commission without having any ruling or decision that would allow them to know whether any of the exceptions established for the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies had materialized. In this regard, it argued that on the date the complaint was filed before the Commission, the investigations were still underway and the Commission was aware of this. Consequently, it asked the Court to declare its preliminary objection well founded. 38. The Commission pointed out that the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies was presented in a timely manner by the State. However, it noted that Peru focused its objection before the Court on the situation prevailing at the time the petition was received. In this regard, the Commission explained that the reason for its decades-long consolidated criterion of analyzing Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Human Rights Defender at al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 15. 16 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 Human Rights Defender at al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 15. 15