that occurred in Ecuador between October 4, 1983 and December 31, 2008” (hereinafter “Law for the reparation of victims”), which “regulate[d] comprehensive reparation for victims.” In doing so, the law delegated powers to different public entities, in particular to the Ombudsman’s Office, which is in charge of the reparations program that falls under the administrative jurisdiction. 20. The State said that as Ecuador “has a reparation mechanism for victims that guarantees people’s rights,” the Court “should not declare that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, since its involvement would undermine all the national reparation proceedings carried out.” It added that the Court “should accept the preliminary objection with respect to the subsidiary nature of the Inter-American System, and allow the State to make domestic reparation through its own legal mechanisms.” 21. The representative argued that the family of Joffre Aroca had waited more than twenty years for the State to fulfill its obligation to make comprehensive reparation for its responsibility for the extrajudicial execution of the alleged victim. He maintained that, were the State to be allowed “at this time” to make “‘supposed’ reparation through its domestic mechanisms,” “the [alleged] victims would be left without the protection of the only body that can put an end to the impunity that has prevailed for so many years.” He asked the Court to “dismiss” the preliminary objection. 22. The Commission suggested that the State’s argument was not, in fact, a preliminary objection, but rather a substantive aspect, because in order to respond to it “the elements of [the] domestic [reparation] mechanisms would have to be analyzed in light of the international standards of justice, truth and reparation.” It pointed out that the Truth Commission and the controls established in the Law for the reparation of victims were put in place after the Admissibility Report had been issued, but the State had not presented arguments regarding its application before the issuance of the Merits Report. 23. It added that the principle of the subsidiary nature of the Inter-American System “does not mean that states should have unlimited opportunities to resolve a matter,” because, once a state has had the opportunity to respond to an alleged violation “but has failed to do so, it must be understood that the principle of subsidiarity no longer applies.” Otherwise, an excessive burden would be placed on the victims who, “having received a rejection at the domestic level, [would] need to continue attempting to obtain a favorable response.” It argued that the principle of subsidiarity should be taken into consideration as a matter of priority in the admissibility stage of a case, so that, once the matter has been admitted, “the progress made by the state may be taken into account when establishing reparations.” It asked the Court to “dismiss” the preliminary objection. B. Considerations of the Court 24. The Court recalls that, in accordance with its case law, it will only consider as preliminary objections those arguments that have, or that might have exclusively those characteristics, in terms of their content and purpose; that is, if favorably resolved, they would prevent the continuation of the proceedings or a ruling on the merits. 10 The Court has consistently held that through a preliminary objection, matters are raised concerning the admissibility of a case or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a specific case or of one of its aspects, owing to the person, matter, time or place. 11 Accordingly, regardless of whether the State defines an approach as Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 35, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2022. Series C No. 463, para. 21. 11 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 32, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 21. 10 7