represented were informed that the mentioned expert statement was dismissed due to its time-barred presentation before the Court. 10. The public hearing was held on February 28, 2011, during the 96th Regular Period of Sessions, held at the seat of the Court.4 11. On March 28, 2011, the Commission, the representatives, and the State presented their final written arguments. On April 5th and 15th, 2011, the representatives and the State, respectively, submitted the annexes [attachments] stated in the written briefs of final arguments. 12. On April 5, 2011, the Inter-American Commission submitted a document entitled, “La Justicia Constitucional Ecuatoriana en la Constitución de 2008” [Ecuadorian Constitutional Justice in the Constitution of 2008] authored by the expert witness Jaime Vintimilla. 13. On April 26, 2011, the parties were given a period until May 4, 2011, to present the observations they deemed necessary, where necessary, regarding the annexes submitted by the State and the representatives (supra para. 11). On May 4, 2011, the Commission and the representatives presented their observations. The State did not offer observations in this regard. On May 16, 2011, the State expressed that the representatives breached the provisions ordered by the Court, given that they did not comment on the annexes presented together with the final arguments of the State, rather they commented on the written arguments of the State, and it requested that the intervention by the representatives be revoked. Subsequently, on June 20, 2011, the State provided information regarding the new qualification procedures for the alleged victim. In this regard, on June 24, 2011, the Secretariat, following instructions by the President, requested the Commission and representatives to provide, “if they deemed it pertinent,” observations to the State’s brief. On June 28, 2011, the representatives and the Commission provided the respective briefs. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 14. In its brief answering the application, the State filed two preliminary objections: one related to the argument of the court of appeals or court of fourth instance, and the other related to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court will now analyze the admissibility of the preliminary objections filed in the order they were raised. A. Court of Appeals or Fourth Instance Arguments of the parties 4 At this hearing, the following were present: a) for the Inter-American Commission, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner, and Lilly Ching, Legal Advisor; b) for the representatives of the alleged victim, César Duque, of the CEDHU and Xavier Mauricio Mejía Herrera, and c) for the State, Erick Roberts Garcés, National Human Rights Director; Alonso Fonseca Garcés, Supervising Litigation Attorney 2, Carlos Espinoza, Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defense, and Anabell Rubio, Affiliations Chief Social Security Institute of the Armed Forces. 5