9. On May 5, 2011, the representative forwarded the expert opinion of Natalia Sergi. The same day, the Secretariat informed the State that it had until May 15, 2011, to present any observations it deemed pertinent. On May 12, 2011, the State presented some observations on the said expert opinion. 10. The public hearing took place on May 16, 2011, during the forty-third special session of the Court held in Panama City, Panama.4 11. On June 15, 2011, the representatives forwarded their final arguments together with several attachments and, on June 16, 2011, the State and the Commission presented their final written arguments. On June 21, 2011, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, granted additional time to the State for the presentation of the information requested by the Court during the public hearing; this was forwarded on July 7, 2011. In addition, in the same communication, the parties were given until July 15, 2011, to present any observations they deemed pertinent, as appropriate, on the attachments sent by the representative and the State with its communication of July 7, 2011. 12. On July 14 and 15, 2011, the State and the representatives, respectively, presented the observations requested, and the Inter-American Commission submitted its observations on July 19, 2011. On July 21, 2011, once the parties’ observations had been reviewed, the Secretariat noted that the State had included in its brief certain arguments and attachments that had not been requested. And also that, although the representative and the Commission made some observations on the information and attachments submitted by the State, they had also presented arguments that had not been requested. Consequently, on the instructions of the President, the parties were advised that the said arguments and attachments were inadmissible and that the Court would not consider them. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 13. The State filed three preliminary objections, which the Court will analyze in the following order: (A) “Lack of competence ratione temporis of the Court to hear the facts set out in the application that occurred before September 5, 1984”; (B) “Violation of the Argentine State’s right of defense during the examination of the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” and (C) “Failure to exhaust available domestic remedies.” 14. In order to consider these preliminary objections, the Court will begin by referring to the facts alleged by the parties in relation to the actions of the police, and the conduct of the criminal proceeding against Mr. Grande, and of the administrative proceeding filed by the latter. 4 There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission, Luz Patricia Mejía, Commissioner, and Karla Quintana Osuna and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, lawyers; (b) for the representatives of the alleged victim, Petro Patiño-Mayer and Alurralde, and (c) for the State, Alberto Javier Salgado, Director of International Litigation of the Human Rights Directorate, Deputy Agent, Julia Loreto from the National Human Rights Secretariat, Pilar Mayoral from the National Human Rights Secretariat, and Ramiro Badia from the National Human Rights Secretariat. 5