that “the State has not justified sufficiently the need for Mr. Grande to file an appeal for the invalidation of the seizure of the documents. It is unclear how Mr. Grande could have avoided the procedural delay by way of this measure.” Additionally, the Commission noted that “from what the State has indicated, it is unclear that Mr. Grande might be required to duplicate a remedy that had already been filed in the same proceeding that was ongoing against him, the result of which would have implications for his procedural situation, as it in fact happened.” The Commission also considered “that, based on the principle of estoppel, the State was not able to change the position set out in its first response to the Commission,” in which it acknowledged that domestic remedies had been exhausted pursuant to the principles of international law. 64. The representative concurred with the Inter-American Commission’s arguments concerning the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Considerations of the Court 65. Regarding the filing of this preliminary objection, the Court refers to its decision concerning the ratione temporis preliminary objection concerning the time frame of its jurisdiction, as well as its decision on the second preliminary objection in which it stated that it would not examine matters arising from the criminal proceedings. 66. The Court also finds it unnecessary to analyze whether the remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction in relation to the criminal proceedings were exhausted, given that, by the date on which the petition was lodged before the Inter-American Commission, November 2, 1992, the criminal proceedings had already concluded four years and ten months earlier with a dismissal in favor of Mr. Grande. 67. Moreover, the Court notes that there is no dispute between the parties as regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to the administrative proceeding, which forms part of the matter analyzed by this Court. 68. Therefore, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to rule on this preliminary objection and, since the facts related to the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention that took place during the administrative proceeding fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, they will be analyzed in this judgment when examining the merits. IV COMPETENCE 69. The Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Articles 62(3) of the American Convention because Argentina has been a State Party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court that same day; that is, September 5, 1984. details of the legal basis for the remedy, its function within the Argentine legal system, and legal precedents. This information was omitted from the briefs on admissibility before the [Commission]. 16