related to the merits of the matter and, if appropriate, could be taken into account by the Court when formulating its recommendations. 42. The representatives claimed that the State’s objection refers to the remedies to which the alleged victims had access and the reparations that they had received, an issue that is directly related to the State’s judicial response to the irregular dismissals, which concerns the merits of the controversy. They argued that, with this objection, the State seeks that reparations for violations of international human rights norms be subject to what is established in the national legislation so that it is the State, and not the Court, that decides the manner to ensure the enjoyment of the right or liberty infringed and the manner to repair the alleged violations. They claimed that the reparations invoked by the State do not meet the standards developed in the inter-American system in cases of irregular dismissals; that not all irregularly dismissed employees can access an administrative instance that could review their dismissals to determine their irregularity, and that not all of those who were included on the list of the irregularly dismissed employees could access the reparations provided by law. They indicated that, in some cases, the alleged victims had to resort to the judiciary in order that the Congress reinstate them in their jobs even though they chose this form of reparation and that an attempt was made to dissuade some of them from their decision to be reincorporated with the argument that there were no budgeted or available positions. D.2 Considerations of the Court 43. The Court recalls that, under its case law, it only considers as preliminary objections those arguments that have, or could exclusively have, such a nature as regards their content and purpose; in other words, resolving them favorably would impede the continuation of the proceedings or a ruling on the merits.23 It has been the Court’s repeated criterion that a preliminary objection is employed to oppose admissibility or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a specific case or some of its aspects, whether it be based on the person, the matter, the time or the place.24 Therefore, irrespective of the name by which the State presents a procedural objection, if in analyzing such a proposal it is necessary to first consider the merits, it would lose its preliminary nature and could not be analyzed as such.25 44. The Court notes here that the State’s main proposal consists in establishing that it had already complied by having repaired some of the alleged victims domestically. The determination of this issue obviously involves the merits and the eventual reparations since it involves evaluating the evidence in the record. Consequently, since the State’s argument does not refer to issues of admissibility, the Court rejects the preliminary objection. E. Alleged lack of the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the alleged violations of Article 26 of the Convention E.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 35 and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of August 31, 2022. Series C No. 463, para. 21. 23 24 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 32 and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 21. 25 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39 and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 21. 13