the final oral observations and arguments of the Commission, the representative of the presumed victims, and the State, respectively. During this hearing, the Court asked the parties to submit specific useful information and documentation. In addition, several statements were received that had been requested by affidavit in the Order of the President of December 20, 2012 (infra para. 31). 10. Final written arguments and observations. On March 11, 2013, the State and the representative forwarded their final written arguments and the Commission presented its final written observations. The representative and the State responded partially to the Court’s request for useful information and documentation. 11. Observations of the representative and the State. The briefs with final written arguments and observations were forwarded to the parties and to the Commission on March 14, 2013. The President granted the representative and the State a specific time frame for presenting any observations they deemed pertinent on the useful evidence requested by the Court, as well as on the information and annexes forwarded by the representative and the State. On March 22 and April 4, 2013, the State and the representative, respectively, forwarded the observations that had been requested. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 12. The State presented a series of preliminary objections and “prior questions” arguing that the Court was incompetent as regards the following: (a) the representative’s argument concerning the presumed violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Melba Suárez Peralta and her next of kin; (b) the inclusion of presumed victims who had not been established in the Commission’s Merits Report; (c) the Commission’s request concerning the offer of the expert opinion of Laura Pautassi, and (d) the Commission’s request concerning the incorporation into the body of evidence of the expert opinions of Raúl Moscoso Álvarez and Ernesto Albán Gómez, both provided in the Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. 13. In this regard, the Court has indicated that preliminary objections are objections of a preliminary nature designed to prevent the analysis of the merits of a matter in question, by objecting to the admissibility of a case, or to the Court’s competence to hear a specific case or any aspect of it based on either the person, the subject matter, the time or the place, provided that these objections are preliminary in nature. 8 14. Regarding objections (c) and (d), the Court indicates that, the Order of the President of December 20, 2012, decided the challenges concerning the offer of an expert opinion and the incorporation of expert opinions that had been provided previously before the Court. 9 In this Order, it was found pertinent to receive and incorporate the said evidence and, since it was considered documentary evidence, the parties were accorded the possibility of referring to the said opinions in their final arguments. Consequently, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to make an additional ruling in this Judgment. 15. In relation to objections (a) and b), in the following sections, the Court will refer to: 8 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. ("In vitro fertilization") v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 40. 9 Cf. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 20, 2012, supra. 7