17. Observations on the helpful evidence and annexes to the final written arguments. On December 19, 2017, the State, the Commission, Factum Consorcio and SIPDH presented observations on the helpful evidence presented in September 2017 and the annexes to the final written arguments. The representatives Factum Consorcio and SIPDH submitted additional annexes along with their observations. On March 15, 2018, SIPDH submitted observations on the helpful evidence forwarded by the State on March 8, 2018. 18. Deliberation on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs. The Court began deliberation on the preliminary objections on May 15 and 16, 2017. Subsequently, it continued the deliberation of this judgment on April 23, 2018. III JURISDICTION 19. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, as Costa Rica has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 8, 1970, and recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on July 2, 1980. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 20. The State filed six preliminary objections alleging: a) objection of compliance with the judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, res judicata under international law; b) objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies; c) objection regarding lack of due process on the part of the Commission, lack of procedural balance of the parties, violation of the State’s right to defense; d) objection regarding the alleged “use of the inter-American system as a fourth instance”; e) objection regarding the violation of the principle of complementarity in relation to prison conditions, and f) objection ratione temporis and objection ratione personae. A. Objection of compliance with the judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, as international res judicata A.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 21. The State argued that it had already undergone a process of international responsibility before the Court, following the judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa and the monitoring of its compliance with that judgment, in which the Court determined that, based on the criminal procedural reform of 2010, the State had complied with the provision of the judgment that established the duty to adapt, within a reasonable time, its domestic legal system to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. It also pointed out that, in the context of compliance with the judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa and under Law 8837, it established measures to comply with Article 8(2)(h), not only for the future but also for cases that at that time were being heard in various criminal proceedings and even for cases in which a final conviction had already been handed down. Therefore, as per the Order on Monitoring Compliance with Judgment in the Case Herrera Ulloa, there was an international res judicata regarding the situation of the Costa Rican criminal procedure system and the guarantees of the right to appeal the judgment. During the public hearing on preliminary objections, it held that “a decision on compliance with the judgment involving a scope beyond the specific case being monitored [would be] res judicata for the State”, and explained that “the only way to substantiate alleged violations is a case by case analysis.” 11