rights jurisdiction. 14 It will then analyze the source and scope of the violations that remain part of the controversy. In order to better understand the international responsibility of a state and the causal link between the violations found and the reparations ordered, the Court deems it pertinent to describe some of the human rights violations that occurred in the present case and that the State has acknowledged. 15 Finally, the Court will rule on the remaining controversy on the reparations requested by the Commission and the representatives. The Court, in the chapters on the merits, will analyze the compatibility of arraigo and pre-trial detention, governed by the Mexican normative, with the American Convention, as well as the rights to personal integrity and to privacy of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López. 27. The Court, however, does not consider it pertinent to rule, at this time, on the violations to the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection since they were expressly accepted by the State in its acknowledgement of international responsibility and since they have already been broadly developed in the Court’s case law. V. PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 28. In the case sub judice, the State presented a preliminary objection on “the failure to present an argument at the proper procedural opportunity with respect to the alleged violation of the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law.” 16 It argued that the Commission had not claimed that the State had violated this obligation “with respect to pre-trial detention sua sponte” in its Merits Report, although the representatives did so in their pleadings and motions brief. 29. On this point, the Court notes, in the first place, that this is not a preliminary objection since its analysis cannot determine the inadmissibility of the case nor the lack of the Court’s jurisdiction to hear it. The Court recalls that alleged victims and their representatives may assert the violation of rights other than those included in a Merits Report, provided that they are set forth in the Commission’s factual framework. 17 In this case, that framework includes facts on the application of pre-trial detention to the detriment of the alleged victims and, therefore, the State’s argument is out of order. 30. The State withdrew its preliminary objections on lis pendens and res judicata (supra para. 9). 18 14 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26 and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 27. 15 Cf. Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 42 and Case of Digna Ochoa et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 25. 16 During the public hearing and in its final written arguments, the State withdrew three preliminary objections that it had formulated in its answering brief, which concerned: a) international res judicata; b) the failure to exhaust domestic remedies and c) the alleged absence of a litis. 17 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 22 and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2022. Series C No. 454, para. 35. 18 The State remitted a general consideration in which it presented its disagreement with the Court’s jurisprudence on the preliminary objections of litis pendens and res judicata. It especially recalled that, in the past, the Court “has discarded the preliminary objection of res judicata because the nature of the observations and recommendations of the human rights committees and mechanisms of international treaties is different than the Court’s judgments.” It argued that Article 47(d) of the American Convention, which refers to this preliminary objection, “does not indicate the legal nature that the decisions that international bodies that have examined a petition should have and that, to the contrary, the travaux préparatoires of the American Convention indicate that this ground of inadmissibility was added in order to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction between the universal and regional international organizations charged with the protection of human rights” and that same article expressly refers to a petition already examined by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the recommendations of which are not legally binding. 9