40. As indicated, preliminary objections are acts that seek to prevent the analysis of the merits of a disputed matter by contesting the admissibility of a case or the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any of its aspects, due to either the person, matter, time, or place, provided that these objections are of a preliminary nature. 43 If the objections cannot be reviewed without entering into a prior analysis of the merits of the case, they cannot be analyzed by a preliminary objection. 44 In the instant case, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to rule in a preliminary manner on the factual framework of the case, because this analysis corresponds to the merits of the case (infra para. 133). However, the arguments presented by the State when filing the preliminary objection will be taken into consideration when establishing the facts that this Court finds proved and determining whether the State is internationally responsible for the alleged violations of the treaty-based rights, as well as when establishing the types of damage that could eventually arise to the detriment of the presumed victims. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State. IV JURISDICTION 41. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case under Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Costa Rica has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 8, 1970, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on July 2, 1980. V EVIDENCE 42. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 50, 51 and 57 of its Rules of Procedure, and on its case law regarding evidence and the assessment thereof, 45 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission and by the parties at the different procedural stages, the statements of the presumed victims and witnesses and the expert opinions provided by affidavit and at the public hearing before the Court, as well as the helpful evidence requested by the Court (supra para. 11). To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework. 46 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 43. The Court received diverse documents offered as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State, together with their main briefs. The Court also received affidavits provided by the deponents: Gerardo Escalante Lopez and Delia Ribas Valdés; the presumed victims: Andrea Regina Bianchi Bruna, Ana Cristina Castillo León, 43 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, para. 34, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 39. 44 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 39, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 39. 45 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 31. 46 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, para. 76, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 31.