8 made observations on said documents, and the representatives submitted additional documents. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 10. In its response to the application, the State filed three preliminary objections: a) lack of jurisdiction of the Court in ratione temporis to examine specific facts, b) failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and c) the lack of legal interesting in the proceeding of the Commission and representatives. Subsequently, in the public hearing, the State added another preliminary objection, the “rule of fourth instance” in regard to the argued supervening fact (infra paras. 44 and 47). 11. While both the American Convention and the Court Rules of Procedure do not develop the concept of “preliminary objection,” in its jurisprudence, the Court has repeatedly affirmed that it is within this means that admissibility of an application or the jurisdiction of the Court to acknowledge specific cases or other aspects, in regard to the person, matter, time, or place, is questioned.18 The Court has noted that the purpose of a preliminary objection is to obtain a decision that prevents or impedes the analysis on the merits of the issue in question or of the case as a whole. Therefore, the approach must satisfy the essential legal characteristics in content and objective that qualify it as a “preliminary objection.” The approaches that do not meet said qualifications, such as those that refer to the merits of the case, can be asserted in other procedural actions allowed by the American Convention or the Court Rules of Procedure, but not as a type of preliminary objection.19 A. Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis of the Court 1. Arguments of the parties 12. The State argued that the Court lacks jurisdiction to examine the alleged violations that took place prior to the State’s acknowledgment of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. Brazil accepted the jurisdiction of the Court “under a reservation of reciprocity and for facts subsequent to December 10, 1998.” Nevertheless, Brazil recognized the jurisprudence of the Court in the sense that it can rule on continued or permanent violations, even when they take place prior to the acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, be it that they are prolonged from said moment in time, but it emphasized that it is unmistakable that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear of accusations that reference arbitrary detentions, acts of torture, and extrajudicial executions that occurred prior to December 10, 1998. 18 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 17, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 35. In the same sense, Cf. Article 79 of the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice. Available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/sp/icjrules.php; last visited on November 20, 2010. 19 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39; Case of Garibaldi, supra note 18, para. 17, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 18, para. 35.