18 definitive production of evidence. Consequently, the State observed that the offering of an anonymous witness placed it in a disadvantaged position with respect to its right to exercise a legitimate defense, and requested that the Court declare the application inadmissible due to the absence of procedural requirements. 55. For its part, the Commission indicated in its observations that “the State’s argument is not the subject of a preliminary objection” and that “the inadmissibility of the totality of the application as a consequence for the presentation of an anonymous witness is unrelated to the sanctions established with respect to this subject in [Articles 44 and 33] of the Rules of Procedure.” Likewise, the Commission alleged that its request “is not a request for permanent anonymity, but rather anonymity only until the Court officially cites the lay and expert witnesses in this case […].” 56. The common intervener stated that it shares the Commission’s view in the sense that the objection raised by El Salvador “is not a preliminary objection, given that it does not impede the consideration of the merits of the case, but rather refers to an issue that should be decided by the Court once the proceedings are underway.” 57. The Court considers the purpose of a preliminary objection to be to challenge or limit the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, that is to say, that it is directed toward a decision on whether the merits of the case can be heard, and if so, which parts of the merits. If the objection does not have this legal characteristic, it cannot be considered an objection. 58. In the present case, the State’s allegations refer to the admissibility of one of the pieces of evidence offered by the Commission, and do not have the nature of a preliminary objection. Moreover, it is important to note that the Commission subsequently withdrew the anonymous witness from its definitive list of witnesses. As a result, the Tribunal observes that at this time that the point is moot. 59. For the above reasons, the Court dismisses the State’s “preliminary objection” because it lacks the characteristics necessary to be considered as such. VI JURISDICTION 60. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the present case, pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention, given that El Salvador has been a State Party to the Convention since June 23, 1978 and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. Therefore, the Court will go on to rule upon the merits and possible reparations, in consideration of its rulings upon the preliminary objections. (supra paras. 46, 53, and 59). VII ARTICLE 4 (RIGHT TO LIFE)29 IN RELATION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 29 Article 4(1) establishes that: [e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.