to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Fernando Grande. The representative also requested that the Court declare the violation of Article XXV (Right of protection from arbitrary arrest) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the American Declaration”). The representative indicated that Mr. Grande “was not heard within a reasonable time in the criminal proceedings against him.” He also indicated that the importance of the present case is rooted “in the need for recognition in the Argentine domestic sphere that the protection and respect for the fundamental rights enshrined in the American Convention require the active exercise of the State’s functions, especially […] respect for judicial guarantees [and] judicial protection, as well as […] ensuring the exercise of these guarantees, [and] the investigation and punishment of failure to comply with this.” The representative also requested different types of reparation. 5. On November 18, 2010, the State presented its brief with preliminary objections, answering the application, and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “the answer to the application”). The three objections filed by the State are: (1) “Lack of competence ratione temporis [of the Court] to hear the facts set out in the application that occurred before September 5, 1984”; (2) “Failure to exhaust available domestic remedies,” and (3) “Violation of the Argentine State’s right to defense during the examination of the case before the Inter-American Commission […].” Furthermore, the State found that “the criminal proceeding against Mr. Grande was undertaken in a reasonable time in keeping with Article 25(1) of the Convention.” Consequently, the State concluded that, in the instant case, there was insufficient evidence to prove a violation of the rights or guarantees recognized in the American Convention. Lastly, the State requested that the Court “reject the petitioner’s claim for reparations and that, based on the circumstances of the case, it determine any reparations possibly owed to Mr. Grande pursuant to applicable international standards.” The State appointed Eduardo Acevedo Díaz, General Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, as its Agent, and Alberto Javier Salgado, Director of International Litigation of the Human Rights Directorate, as deputy agent. 6. On February 17 and 18, 2011, the representative and the Inter-American Commission presented their observations on the State’s preliminary objections. In this regard, both the representative and the Commission asked the Court to reject these objections. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. The application was notified to the State and the representatives on June 22 and 25, 2010, respectively. 8. In his Order of April 15, 2010, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) ordered that the opinion of an expert witness be received by affidavit, and convened the parties to a public hearing in order to hear the testimony of the alleged victim as proposed by the representative, together with the oral arguments of the parties on the preliminary objections and on possible merits, reparations, and costs. In addition, the President gave the parties until June 16, 2011, to present their final written arguments. 4