However, as the Spanish version of the brief of Caio Fabio Varela and others was presented with a delay of 34 days, it was declared inadmissible. 16. On October 4, 5 and 6, 2012, the representatives and the State forwarded their final written arguments and the Inter-American Commission presented its final written observations in this case, respectively. These briefs were forwarded to the parties, who were given until October 17, 2012, to submit any observations they deemed pertinent regarding the information provided in response to the Court’s questions. Observations were forwarded by representative Molina. The Inter-American Commission stated that it had no observations to make. Representative May and the State did not submit observations. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 17. The State submitted three “preliminary objections”: failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the fact that the petition presented by Karen Espinoza and Héctor Jiménez was time-barred, and the Inter-American Court’s lack of competence to hear supervening facts after the submission of the petition. A) Failure to exhaust domestic remedies 18. The State argued that it had not “waive[d] the filing” of objections. It indicated that the Constitutional Chamber had “declared unconstitutional a certain type of in vitro fertilization” and explained that “if the technique advances to the point where it permits it to be performed without the loss of embryos, it can be used.” Consequently, the State indicated that “the petitioners could apply both to the constitutional jurisdiction and to the contentious administrative jurisdiction, so that the possibility that the health services could treat their infertility could be discussed,” including the possibility of “a particular in vitro fertilization technique […] under the hypotheses provided by the Constitutional Chamber.” The State indicated that, in the constitutional jurisdiction, “the existence of the ruling” did not “prevent the Constitutional Chamber from reviewing the matter by means of an action of unconstitutionality” given that the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction states that the rulings of the said Chamber “are not binding for the Chamber itself, [which] could review the matter once again.” It added that “the existence of a decision by the Constitutional Chamber does not preclude a ruling on the part of the Chamber itself,” either “by means of a constitutional appeal or through the contentious administrative courts.” Furthermore, the presumed victims “could have requested that the administrative authorities, respecting the decision of the Constitutional Chamber, provide a remedy for their condition of infertility” or “create a new regulation” on IVF, “in line with the parameters established by the ruling of the Constitutional Court.” “If the administrative authorities refused to provide the required attention,” it would have been appropriate to file an application for amparo. However, “none of the couples filed” this appeal. 19. The State further argued that “faced with the refusal of the administrative authorities, the presumed victims could have initiated a contentious administrative proceeding”; however, none of them did so before beginning the proceedings before the Commission. It added that the domestic remedies were “efficient” and that “proof of this is that one of the presumed victims turned to the contentious administrative court, after the petition had been filed before the Commission.” 20. The Commission pointed out that, in the proceedings prior to the admissibility report, the State merely limited itself to “suggesting the possibility that the [alleged] victims could