7 case in the El Frontón affair, and a transcript of the statements given by the witnesses who testified at the public hearing the Court held on July 6 and 10, 1993. 24. On January 22, 1999, the State supplied only the October 28, 1986 decision handed down by the Court of Constitutional Guarantees on the petition of cassation filed by Mrs. Virginia Ugarte Rivera challenging the decision delivered by the Supreme Court’s First Criminal-Law Chamber, documentation concerning the various steps taken and the difficulties encountered in locating the case files on the petitions filed seeking writs of habeas corpus and the terrorism trial, and documentation supplied by the National Criminal Law Court for Terrorism Cases. 25. On March 3, 1999, the State was again asked to submit documentation concerning the petitions filed seeking writs of habeas corpus, and the case file on the terrorism trial, which the Court had requested to facilitate adjudication of the case. As of the date of this judgment, the State has still not submitted the requested information. 26. On April 7, 1999, the Secretariat requested information from the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States as to whether the Peruvian State had sent it any notification of states of emergency or suspensions of guarantees between June 1, 1986, and July 20, 1987, pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Convention. On May 19, 1999, the General Secretariat’s Department of International Law reported that no such notification had been received or recorded. 27. To facilitate adjudication of the case, on April 7 of this year the Secretariat requested a copy of Supreme Decree No. 012-86 IN of June 2, 1986. The State forwarded a copy of that decree on May 5, 1999. V JURISDICTION 28. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. Hence, under the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, the Court has jurisdiction to hear the preliminary objections brought by the State. VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 29. The preliminary objections filed by the State are presented, grouped and examined under the following procedural principles, given their nature and similarities: a) exhaustion of local remedies (cf. objection one); b) matter decided, res judicata and the Court’s lack of jurisdiction (cf. objections two, three and five); c) the extemporaneous filing of the application (cf. objection four), and d) procedural error, lack of competence to take action and the Commission’s lack of standing (cf. objections six and seven). VII EXHAUSTION OF LOCAL REMEDIES Objection One 30. The State’s first objection concerns the “failure to exhaust local remedies.”