8 State argued the requirement that the alleged victim exhaust the appeal which was implemented on August 27, 2007. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that at the moment Mr. Alibux was convicted, said remedy did not exist, and the argument regarding the requirement to exhaust this remedy was not raised at the appropriate procedural instance. As such, the preliminary objection is time-barred. 20. Lastly, regarding the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies in regard to the restriction of the right to leave the country of January of 2003, the Court notes that the alleged victim did not file any remedy before the domestic tribunals. However, the State did not contravene its admissibility in the early stages of the proceedings before the Commission, nor did it indicate the remedies that the alleged victim should have exhausted, and this information was not provided to the Court (infra para. 26). C. Conclusion 21. Based on the aforementioned, the Court rejects the preliminary objections raised by the State. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the assessments and evaluations of the remedies that were available will be evaluated on the merits of the matter.15 IV JURISDICTION 22. Pursuant to the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case given that Suriname has been a State Party to the American Convention since November 12, 1987, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that date. V EVIDENCE 23. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57, and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its jurisprudence regarding evidence and assessment thereof,16 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements provided by the parties on different procedural opportunities, the statements, testimonies, and expert opinions rendered by sworn statements before a notary public (affidavit) and at the public hearing, as well as the helpful evidence requested by the Court. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework.17 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 24. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 2 and 6). Similarly, the Court received documentation presented by the representative as attachments to the brief of observations to the preliminary objections (supra para. 7). In addition, the Court received the sworn 15 Cf. Case of The Santo Domingo Massacre, supra, para. 38. 16 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.)V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of J. V. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 38. 17 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra, para. 76, and Case of J., supra, para. 38.