efficiency” that it was unnecessary to convene a public hearing, considering that “the disputes in the case are fundamentally legal in character.” The decision was communicated via Presidential Resolution on July 23, 2019. That resolution included an order for two notarized written statements to be delivered to the Court (infra para. 34). 9. Final written arguments and observations. On September 16, 2019, the Commission presented its final written observations and the State submitted its final written arguments. The representative did not present final written arguments. 10. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated this judgment on February 3, 2020. III JURISDICTION 11. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention. Ecuador has been a Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, and it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 6 12. The State lodged two preliminary objections, claiming: a) failure to exhaust domestic remedies and b) alleged violation of its right to defense. A) Objection regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies 13. The State argued that it had provided domestic remedies for a) challenging the court conviction and b) contesting the preventive detention. Regarding the first, it noted that: i.- a cassation appeal could be filed “if the presumed victim believed the Criminal Court had violated the law through the conviction,” and ii.- the remedy of review was appropriate to “remedy the case of a person wrongly convicted.” Regarding the second, it noted that Mr. Carranza presented neither i.- the remedy of habeas corpus, which was a “fast, suitable, and effective remedy” to demand the release of persons unlawfully or arbitrarily detained, nor ii.- the liberty amparo during the criminal proceedings in order to resolve his legal situation with respect to his right to personal liberty. The Commission noted: a) that the State did not have any proof that it had carried out a periodic review of the continued appropriateness of preventive detention until the issuance of the conviction; b) that the requirement of exhausting domestic remedies does not mean that the presumed victims are necessarily obligated to exhaust all available remedies; c) that the brief presented by Mr. Carranza in September 1995 to the court that was hearing the criminal trial gave the State the opportunity to remedy the issue; d) that the liberty amparo remedy was pointed out by the State for the first time before the Inter-American Court, so the argument is not timely; e) that the remedies of cassation and review are not for the purpose of contesting the “unlawful or arbitrary” detention of the presumed victim, and f) that a habeas corpus before 14. 6 As indicated above (supra para. 7), the representative’s observations on the preliminary objections will not be considered because they were presented late. 5