filed the case.”12 Subsequently, on December 4, 2006, the State indicated “that, at no time […] had the victim’s family attributed the events to agents of the State, which proved the inexistence of a formal complaint in this regard; therefore, the petition has become inadmissible [as regards the alleged violations] because it does not refer to a violation committed by officials or agents of a State Party pursuant to Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention.”13 17. The Court notes that, by arguing the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it was incumbent on the State to specify the remedies that remained to be exhausted and to prove that these were available and also adequate, suitable and effective.14 In this regard, the Court reiterates that it is not the task of either the Court or the Commission to identify, ex officio, the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted; thus, it is not for the international organs to rectify the lack of precision of the State’s arguments. 15 From the foregoing it can be inferred that, when a State invokes the existence of a remedy that has not been exhausted, this must not only be opportune, but also clear, identifying the remedy in question and also how that remedy, in the specific case, would be adequate and effective to protect the persons in the situation reported.16 In the instant case, the State merely indicated before the Commission that the alleged victims should have reported the facts. In this regard, the Court notes that the representatives did report the facts on March 14, 1995. Contrary to the State’s argument, for the Court to hear the case it is not necessary that the alleged victims attribute direct responsibility to agents of the State in their complaint. Therefore, the arguments that the State presented to the Commission were unclear as to the remedy that had to be exhausted. Consequently, the preliminary objection filed by the State is rejected. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 18. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, as well as those requested by the Court or its President as helpful evidence and, as in other cases, it admits these in the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)17 and that their admissibility was not contested or challenged. 12 Brief of the Permanent Mission of Guatemala to the OAS of November 30, 1999 (evidence file, folio 295). 13 Report of the State of Guatemala of December 4, 2006 (evidence file, folio 56). Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, paras. 88 and 91, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 26. 14 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 23, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 26. 15 Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 30, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 26. 16 The documentary evidence may be presented in general and in keeping with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs submitting the case or with pleadings and motions, or with the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence forwarded outside these procedural occasions is not admissible, subject to the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, grave impediment) or in the case of a supervening fact – that is, one that occurred after the said procedural moments. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 38. 17 6