9 29) In its preliminary objection, Trinidad and Tobago sustained that the InterAmerican Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case in light of three main arguments: I. The application in so far as it alleges a breach of Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights is inadmissible for breach of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. II. case. The State’s second reservation precludes any jurisdiction of the Court in this III. Alternatively, the State has never recognised the jurisdiction of the Court. 30) The Court will consider the arguments presented by the State in the case sub judice. A. INADMISSIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINT Written arguments of the State 31) The State notes that Article 46 of the American Convention establishes that: 1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: […] b. that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment[.] 32) According to Trinidad and Tobago, one of the allegations in the Commission’s application states that the imposition of the death penalty in the present case constituted a violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention. This argument was not presented in the original petition or in the complementary petition lodged by the petitioner before the Commission, but rather in a “second supplementary petition” lodged before it on September 28, 1998. 33) This “second supplementary petition” was presented ten months after the final domestic judgment, and therefore outside the six-month time period provided for in Article 46(1)(b) and after the Commission’s September 25, 1998 Report on the admissibility of the petition and complementary petition. It also contains an argument that the petitioner could have presented in his petition and his complementary petition and, as a result, the allegation in reference to Article 4(1) of the Convention is in breach of Article 46(1)(b) of the same. For the aforementioned reasons, this should be considered a separate petition requiring a separate decision on admissibility. Moreover, the State indicated that the date of the Privy Council’s dismissal of Mr. Hilaire’s petition and the date accepted by the Commission as the date of the final judgment was November 6, 1997. As a result, the six-month time period to present the petition before the Commission expired on May 5, 1998. Written arguments of the Commission