18 to the case. The Court notes that from the case file it is not evident that there was an inadequate analysis by the Commission regarding this objection. Similarly, during the processing of the case before the Court, the State had the opportunity to present its defense regarding all the aspects of the application, to which it has not proven a detriment to its right to defense in regard to the Commission’s decision. In this sense, the Court does not find any elements established that would require a modification to that resolved by the InterAmerican Commission. In addition, of the arguments of the parties and the evidence provided in the case file, the Court notes that the arguments of the State related to the effectiveness of the remedy and the inexistence of an unjustified delay in the Ordinary Action deal with questions related to the merits of the case, given that they refute the arguments related to the alleged violation of Articles 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention. Based on the previous considerations, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. D. Formula of Fourth Instance and Non-exhaustion of Remedies regarding the Non-compliance Action of the Fundamental Principle42 1. Arguments by the parties 43. In its response to the application, in its arguments regarding the nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, the State maintained that “it should be allowed the opportunity to debate and democratically deliberate the issue related with the purpose of the […] application within its domestic legal procedures[.] In particular, it is necessary to give time to the […] Federal Supreme Court for it to rule once and for all on the pending legal issues of the military government.” In particular, it stated that in October 2008, the Order of Attorneys of Brazil filed an action of Argüição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental wherein it requested the Federal Supreme Court to provide an interpretation of the Amnesty Law that is in conformity with the Constitution […], in a way that rules that the amnesty granted by it to the crimes of political motivation or those in relation, do not extend to common law crimes carried out by agents of the repression against the political opposition during the military regime. 44. Subsequent to the response to the application, Brazil reported that on April 29, 2010, the Federal Supreme Court “declared [the Non-compliance Action No. 153], in a seven to two vote, inadmissible,” considering that “the Amnesty Law represented, at the time, a necessary step in the reconciliation and redemocratization process in the country,” and that “it was not a self-amnesty.” Based on this recent decision, the State questioned the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court to review decisions adopted by the highest courts of the State, noting that this Court cannot analyze issues on the merits of the present application, which occurred until April 29, 2010, given the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Based on the decision of the Non-compliance Action No. 153, the normal exhaustion of the domestic remedy was evinced, and in addition, a new barrier arose in the analysis of the merits of the application: the prohibition of the formula of the fourth instance. As such, on the one hand, the processing of the Non-compliance Action No. 153 respected due process, was transparent, permitted the participation of all the interested parties, and guaranteed 42 The “Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental” is a type of remedy created by the Federal Constitution of 1988, amended by a constitutional reform in 1993 and regulated by Law No. 9.882 of December 3, 1999. It establishes in Article 1 that said action “shall be proposed to the Federal Supreme Court and its purpose will be to avoid and repair a violation to the Fundamental Principle that results from an act of the Public Power” (brief of annexes to the answer to the application, annex 35, tome IV, folio 6309).