12 Section of the Distrito Federal Superior Court; and Mr. Juan Carlos Solís-Martínez, General Director for Human Rights of the Distrito Federal Attorney General’s Office, as Advisors. 4 43. On May 27, 2003, the Secretariat, in conformity with Article 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, granted the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin thirty days as of the date of receipt of the brief of preliminary objections entered, the response to the application, and observations to the brief on pleadings and motions, to submit written arguments on the preliminary objections. 44. On June 24 and July 21, 2003, the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin requested an extension of the term allowed for the submission of written arguments on preliminary objections. 45. On June 24 and July 22, 2003, the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, granted to the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin, and to the Commission, the extension requested by the former. The term for the submission of the cited written arguments on preliminary objections was extended to July 28, 2003. 46. On July 28, 2003, the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin submitted their written arguments on the preliminary objections entered by the State. In their brief the representatives requested that the Inter-American Court: “in conformity with Article 37(6) [of the] Rules of Procedure [in force], defer the decision on the other preliminary objections entered by the State […] contingent upon that which relates to the merits of the case, since [they] intrinsically relate to the latter” 5 ; “reject the objection relative to exhaustion of domestic remedies in consideration of the fact that it was entered extemporaneously,” and that “in accordance with the provisions of Article 3(9) of the Rules of Procedure [in force they be] given the opportunity to submit […] observations to the State’s brief relative to matters of fact, merits and reparations.” 47. On July 28, 2003, the Commission submitted its arguments to the preliminary objections entered by the State, whereby it requested the Court to dismiss them. 48. On August 07, 2003, the State sent a note asking “to be informed about which the procedure to be followed [would] be, since it wished to transmit its observations” to the written arguments on preliminary objections submitted by the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin. 49. On September 05, 2003, the State submitted “a document which purpose was to clarify and specify the main points of the [preliminary] objections set out by the [State] in its response to the application.” Several appendices to the State’s brief were received on September 22, 2003. 4 During the process of the instant case the State made changes to its representation. 5 The representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin indicated that the preliminary objection interposed by the State on the Court’s ratione temporis competence, as well as the arguments relative to the Court’s competence to apply the Inter-American Convention against Torture in the instant case and with the “fourth-instance formula” had to be examined in the eventual stage on the merits.