50. This Court considers that the State should have presented the arguments on admissibility concerning these new facts at the first possible occasion before the Commission. In this regard, the Court notes that more than 10 months passed between the date on which the law was amended and the appeal on unconstitutionality was filed, and the date on which the Merits Report was issued. During that time, on February 1, 2010, the presumed victims advised the Commission of the said amendment to the law, asking that it be applied to them. 63 However, in the Commission’s case file there is no record that the State advised the Commission about these new facts or presented any type of argument about the existence of new remedies available to the victims as a result of this until after the Merits Report had been issued. 64 The Court underscores that, during this time, the Commission granted the State at least one opportunity to present observations on the said amendment to the law, without the State presenting the information that it has now presented to this Court. 65 51. Based on the above, the Court finds that the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the supervening facts resulting from the 2009 amendment to the law was not filed at the opportune procedural moment before the Commission, so that its presentation before this Court is time-barred. Consequently, the Court rejects the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies filed by Argentina. V COMPETENCE 52. The Inter-American Court is competent, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, to hear this case, because Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that date. VI EVIDENCE 53. Based on the provisions of Articles 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law on evidence and its assessment, 66 the Court will examine and assess the 63 Cf. The presumed victims’ brief of January 14, 2010, received on February 1, 2010 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 1194 and 1195). 64 Cf. The State’s brief of November 28, 2011 (file of annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives, folio 3528). 65 The presumed victims’ brief of January 14, 2010, received on February 1, 2010, was forwarded to the State, which was granted a specific time frame “to present any observations it deemed opportune.” However, the State did not respond to this request for observations, but asked for an extension on July 22, 2011, which was not granted, because the Commission had issued the Merits Report in this case on July 20, 2011. Cf. The presumed victims’ brief of January 14, 2010, received on February 1, 2010 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 1194 to 1195); letter of the Inter-American Commission to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade, and Worship of June 20, 2011 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 1188), and letter of the Inter-American Commission to Carlos and Pablo Mémoli of June 20, 2011 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 1191). See also, the State’s briefs presented to the Inter-American Commission on July 22, 2011 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 1356 and 1357), and letter of the Inter-American Commission to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade, and Worship of August 3, 2011 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folio 1324). 66 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 30. 21