12 objections), legal entity status and standing (cfr. fifth and sixth objections), "premature decision" to send the case to the Court (cfr. seventh objection), ‘ambiguity in the manner of submitting the application" (cfr. eighth objection), lapse of the application (cfr. ninth objection) and “sovereignty and jurisdiction" (cfr. tenth objection). To avoid unnecessary repetition, these objections will be examined below under general headings that indicate the basic subject matter of the objections, with pertinent cross-references, and an examination in each case of other matters brought up by Peru in its explanation of the respective objections. VII EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES First Objection 51. The first objection interposed by the State refers to the failure to exhaust the domestic remedies of Peru at the time the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to Article 37 of its Regulations, admitted for processing the complaint on behalf of Jaime Francisco Castillo-Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira-Sáez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado-Saavedra, and Alejandro Astorga-Valdéz. 52. The Court summarizes in the following terms the arguments of the State and the Commission as to this objection: a. The State asserted that the Inter-American Commission received and initiated the processing of the January 28, 1994 complaint when a proceeding in Peru was pending against the alleged victims. On May 3, 1994, the Special Military Supreme Court of the Supreme Council of Military Justice convicted the alleged victims of “the commission of the above-mentioned criminal act. The complaint filed by Verónica Reyna, Chief of the Legal Department of FASIC, concerned three of the alleged victims; the fourth alleged victim, Alejandro Astorga-Valdéz, was added subsequently. In the public hearing Peru stated that the Commission informed it of the complaint on June 29, 1994. The State maintained that the Commission did not comply with the requirements of Articles 46(1)(a) and 47(a) of the Convention, Article 37 of its Regulations, and Articles 18 and 19 a. of its Statute. b. The Commission asserted that the complaint was transmitted to Peru on June 29, 1994, after the Supreme Council of Military Justice issued the conviction on May 3, 1994. It added that, in its judgment, it would not have been necessary to exhaust domestic remedies, given that Decree-Laws No. 25,659 and 25,708 the corresponding procedural norms, and their application in a concrete case, do not provide "the fundamental guarantees of due process" for the crime of treason against the fatherland. During the public hearing, the Commission pointed out that its argument was grounded in the exception to the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies (Article 46(2) of the Convention) and stated that this issue had not been raised before it in a timely manner. 53. As to this first objection raised by the State, the Court will not consider the assessments of the parties as to the conformity of the nature of the proceedings against the alleged victims with the principles of legal due process set forth in the