14 on the petition. In addition, it did so following a communication in which the Commission, in the terms of Article 38(1) of its Rules of Procedure, asked the State to forward its observations on the merits. Nevertheless, the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies was filed before the Inter-American Commission’s decision on the admissibility of the petition, which occurred in Report No. 13/07. In addition, the Court observes that the Commission did not find that the objection filed by the State was timebarred. Based on the above, the Court concludes that this objection was presented opportunely. 49. In the instant case, the failure to exhaust domestic remedies is disputed in relation to the criminal investigation. In general, criminal remedies are designed to determine the existence of a punishable act and, if applicable, the criminal responsibility of the alleged perpetrators.29 When the Commission issued its Report No. 13/07, on March 27, 2007, the Police Investigation into the death of Sétimo Garibaldi had been closed at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and by court order. 50. From the arguments of the parties and the evidence provided to the case file, the Court observes that the State’s allegations concerning the effectiveness of the Police Investigation and the inexistence of an unjustified delay involve matters relating to the merits of the case, because they contradict the arguments concerning the presumed violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 51. Based on the above findings, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. IV COMPETENCE 52. The Inter-American Court is competent, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, to hear the instant case, because Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 25, 1992, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. V EVIDENCE 53. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment,30 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at different procedural opportunities, as well as the testimony and expert opinions provided by sworn statements made before notary public (affidavits) and during the public hearing before the Court. To this end, it will abide by the principles of judicial discretion within the corresponding normative framework.31 29 Cf. Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 42. 30 Cf. The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 55, and Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 26. 31 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 55, and Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 30, para. 26.