the place, provided that these objections are of a preliminary nature. 12 If these objections cannot be considered without previously analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be examined by means of a preliminary objection.13 16. Based on the indication of the State and the said concept of preliminary objections, the Court will analyze these assertions. A. Request to exclude representatives facts and alleged violations presented by the Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 17. The State argued that, under Article 35(3) of Court’s the Rules of Procedure, the Commission must indicate the facts that it submits to the Court’s consideration, and that this article of the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted in keeping with Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, so that the “facts that supposedly violated this instrument” (Article 35(1)) or the “facts contained in the report” on merits (Article 35(3) cannot include allegations that have been declared inadmissible by the Commission and, especially, facts regarding which domestic remedies have not been exhausted. Thus, if the Inter-American Commission decides in the Merits Report that a specific group of facts do not constitute a violation of a human right, or decides, for any reason, that it is unnecessary to declare a violation, it should be understood that this group of facts is not submitted to the Court. The combined examination of Articles 47, 50 and 61 of the Convention implies that the phrase “facts that supposedly violated this instrument” in Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure necessarily refers to facts that characterize a violation of the Convention and were not unfounded or inadmissible, that were included in the Commission’s conclusions and, therefore, were submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court. It argued that any other facts exceed the factual framework of the case and the representatives may not include them.14 18. Thus, the State argued that the Court should exclude from these proceedings the facts corresponding to the following “categories”: the facts introduced by the representatives that do not appear in the Merits Report;15 the facts that the Commission expressly declared had not been proved;16 the simple factual allegations or arguments of the petitioners regarding which the Commission did not make a factual determination;17 the facts that the Commission declared had not violated the Convention, and the facts regarding which the Commission considered it 12 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 25. 13 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 40. 14 Based on this, the State argued that “two groups of facts exceed the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court: (a) mere allegations of the petitioners that do not constitute ‘factual determinations’ of the Commission,’ and (b) factual arguments that the Commission considered inadmissible.” In addition, in the State’s opinion, there are two additional groups of facts “that are analogous” to the previous ones, namely: (i) factual allegations by the petitioners that the Commission explicitly declared had not been proved, and (ii) factual allegations to which the Commission did not accord any legal consequences.” 15 This refers to articles of the American Convention that the representatives argue have been violated, and that the Commission did not declare violated, Articles 2, 5 (in relation to physical integrity), 9 and 17. 16 This refers to the Commission’s conclusions that Article 5 of the Convention regarding physical integrity had not been violated, and that it was not necessary to rule on the alleged violation of Article 17 of the Convention. 17 The State mentioned the representatives’ arguments on the violation of Articles 17, 9, 5 and 2 of the Convention. 9