21. The State requested that the arguments of the representatives of the alleged victims regarding the violation of Article 8(4) of the American Convention be rejected, given that this was the first time that the alleged violation of the principle of ne bis in idem was being raised in these international proceedings. Argentina held that the alleged victim “has accepted the supposed violation [of the principle of non bis in idem] by not having raised it in a timely manner, neither in the domestic courts nor in the international courts” and that “Mr. Mohamed’s conduct should be considered […] as estoppel”. The State indicated that this omission on the part of the representatives had denied it the opportunity to duly address and respond to the issue and that “the subsidiary nature of international law to domestic law prevents [the] Court from dealing with these grievances.” 22. The Commission noted that the legal argument regarding the violation of Article 8(4) made by the representatives was based on the factual framework of the Commission’s Report on the Merits. Likewise, it held that the fact that a petitioner does not argue a specific violation under an Article of the Convention before the Commission “does not itself imply that, during the proceedings before the Court, with legal representation, the petitioner is constrained from raising legal arguments separate to those of the [Commission].” Similarly, it argued that the determining factor with regard to the State’s right to defense is the degree of connectedness and relationship between the legal claim brought before the Court and the purpose of the case processed and decided by the Commission. Furthermore, the Commission mentioned that at the stage of admissibility, the State formulated its defense in a generic manner, in the sense that in the proceedings against Mr. Mohamed, the State had respected the judicial guarantees set forth in Article 8 of the Convention. 23. The representatives stated that their arguments have remained within the factual framework presented by the Commission and therefore asked the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection. They further held that the “violations of the Convention [cannot] be consented to” and thus its argument “is not ‘precluded’ by not having been previously invoked […] by the affected party”. Considerations of the Court 24. The Court has stated that preliminary objections are acts that seek to prevent analysis of the merits of a disputed matter by contesting the admissibility of an application or the jurisdiction of the Court to hear a particular case, or any aspect thereof, owing either to the person, matter, time, or place, provided that these objections are of a preliminary nature.11 If these objections cannot be examined without a prior review of the merits of the case, they cannot be examined by means of a 12 preliminary objection. 25. The State essentially bases its preliminary objection on the argument that the violation of Article 8(4) of the Convention, alleged by the representatives, was not litigated in the domestic proceedings nor was it brought before the Commission, thereby denying Argentina the opportunity to address and duly respond to the matter, in accordance with the subsidiary nature of international law (supra para. 20). In asking the Court to reject the objection raised, the Commission and the representatives 11 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012 Series C No. 248, para. 30. 12 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 Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 30. 9