Merits Report had been implemented effectively, and that any possible inter-American public interest was not, in itself, sufficient reason for the matter to be heard. The State further contended that subjecting the State to the Court’s jurisdiction, despite the fact that it had complied fully with the Commission’s recommendations, went against the logic of the InterAmerican System. Consequently, it asked the Court to take its observations into account when assessing the admissibility and merits of the case. The State also argued that, in keeping with the principle of complementarity, another reason that the State was not responsible was because Resolution 1088 had been revoked. 19. The Commission affirmed that the decision to submit a case to the Court was within the scope of its autonomy, and that the State’s argument was not a preliminary objection. It further argued that cases were referred in strict compliance with Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and Article 45 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. It also said that, as stated in its note of referral, the case had been submitted to the Court due to the need to obtain justice and comprehensive reparation for the victims, as well as the public order issues involved. Furthermore, contrary to what the State had asserted, the Commission held that the recommendations made in the Merits Report had not been complied with in full, the State’s efforts notwithstanding. The Commission also argued that, in order for the State not be held legally responsible based on the principle of complementarity, the State would have to recognize the international violation, and a ruling be issued on whether the violation had ceased, and reparation had been made. Neither applied in the instant case. The Commission therefore asked the Court to reject the State’s arguments. 20. The representatives did not present arguments with regard to this matter. B. Considerations of the Court 21. The Court recalls that, in accordance with its case law, it will only consider as preliminary objections those arguments that have, or that might have exclusively those characteristics, in terms of their content and purpose; that is, if favorably resolved, they would prevent the continuation of the proceedings or a ruling on the merits. 7 The Court has consistently held that through a preliminary objection, matters are raised concerning the admissibility of a case or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a specific case or of one of its aspects, owing to the person, matter, time or place. 8 Accordingly, regardless of whether the State defines an approach as a “preliminary objection,” if these arguments cannot be considered without previously analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be examined by means of a preliminary objection. 9 22. In relation to this case, the Court notes that the State’s arguments raised as preliminary objections question the following: a) the alleged victims’ participation in the case, and whether they are correctly represented; and b) whether the effects of the alleged violations of the alleged victims’ human rights warrant analysis by this Court. The Court holds that the arguments raised by the State refer to compliance with the formal requirements for Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 35; and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2020. Series C No. 406, para. 32. 7 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 32, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia, supra, para. 32. 8 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 Petro Urrego v. Colombia, supra, para. 32. 9 7