11 3(1) “Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency between the object and the plea, and the body of the text”; and 3(2) “Inconsistency between the claims of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and those of the representatives of the alleged victims.” 4. “Failure to exhaust domestic remedies” 4(1) “Justified delay in the corresponding decision”; and 4(2) “Inappropriateness of the remedy of habeas corpus.” 50. When presenting its final oral arguments on preliminary objections during the public hearing on September 7, 2004 (supra para. 38), the State indicated that “it withdr[ew]” the preliminary objection “on the inconsistency between the claims of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and those of the representatives of the alleged victims [and their next of kin].” Consequently, the State withdrew the second part of the third preliminary objection (supra para. 49). 51. The Court will now proceed to examine the remaining objections filed by El Salvador. FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “LACK OF JURISDICTION RATIONAE TEMPORIS” 52. In the brief filing preliminary objections, answering the application and with observations on the requests and arguments brief, the State divided the first preliminary objection into: 1(1) “Non-retroactivity of the disappearance of persons”; and application of the crime of forced 1(2) Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”. 53. The Court will now summarize the argument of the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin concerning this preliminary objection, starting with objection 1(2) entitled “Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognized the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” “Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights” Arguments of the State 54. The State argued that: