8 Property) and 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) of the American Convention. 23. Regarding the objection of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State, in connection with Article 21 of the Convention, claimed that the “petitioners did not file judicial actions of any type to claim (their) right to property” and that no legal obstacles exists to do so, in virtue of the Civil Code which “establishes the absence of the individual at hand regarding representation in trial and the administration of goods by the relatives of said absent person.”16 Then, the State indicated that in line with the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity, the Court did not have the jurisdiction to examine the case. During the public hearing, the State argued that the preliminary objections attacked specific points of controversy and not those accepted in the acknowledgement, for which they did not lose their preliminary nature. In its final arguments, the State added that a) the Commission did not include Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention in its brief of the petition, nor did it make any factual reference to the facts that may be considered as violations, nor was it included in the initial request, and therefore, was not considered in the Report on Admissibility or the Merits issued by the Commission; b) it reiterated that the representatives have not presented judicial remedies in order to claim the rights to property, and c) it stated that the process of absence and alleged death do not comply with the requirement of promptness and judicial economy; nevertheless, these have been used by the next of kin of the victims of the forced disappearance, with the goal of obtaining the declaration of the alleged death of their disappeared family member in order to assert their civil rights. 24. For its part, in the submission of comments to the preliminary objections raised, the representatives noted that the objections raised by the State were inadmissible because the recognition of responsibility made by the State also implies the recognition of the full jurisdiction of the Tribunal in order to hear the case. They also indicated that: a) regarding the guidelines that the Tribunal has developed in order to analyze that objection, this one lacks the formal requirements and precision required; b) that the forced displacement of the Chitay Rodriguez family and the loss of their lands are a consequence of the forced disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech. The discussion in turn of the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies must not be centered on mere civil remedies, but the absence of effective remedies in order to investigate, prosecute, and sentence the alleged perpetrator for said disappearance. In that regard, the Commission in its Admissibility Report of the present case estimated, the objection contemplated in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention is applicable because an unjustified delay has been produced in the decision of the remedies of the internal jurisdiction. Once the Commission has reached a determination on the admissibility of a request, previous analysis of the arguments of the parties, this decision is of “definitive” and “indivisible” character and the principle of procedural preclusion is in effect. In the present case the decision of the Commission in the Report of Admissibility would not have to be checked or modified; c) that the process of absence is not the principal remedy that must be exhausted in cases of forced disappearance of persons, even existing it would have been inadequate, and d) that the arguments of the State regarding this preliminary objection would be closely linked with the merits of the case, especially regarding the efficiency of the domestic remedies regarding the disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech, the access to justice and its consequences, for which the Court may accumulate this objection to the merits and analyze it to resolve if the State is responsible for the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. In the final arguments, the representatives manifested that the loss of property of Florencio Chitay Nech is part of the 16 In this regard, the State pointed to Articles 42, 47, and 55 of the Civil Code of Guatemala.