-9- [T]he alleged victim first argued the failure to comply with the legal and constitutional requirements for admission of the extradition request throughout the advisory proceeding decided in the final instance by the Supreme Court of Justice on January 27, 2010. Secondly, he submitted two applications for habeas corpus against the members of the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber and the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the aforementioned Supreme Court, pointing to alleged defects in the advisory proceeding and an alleged inadequate evaluation of the guarantees provided by the Government of the People’s Republic of China that the death penalty would not be imposed. In addition, the presumed victim filed a preventive application for habeas corpus against the President of the Republic and the Council of Ministers, which has been pending a final decision from the Constitutional Court on constitutional injury since July 14, 2010. 40. Based on the foregoing considerations, the [Commission] consider[ed] that the presumed victim [had] exhausted the available remedies under domestic law aiming at rectifying the alleged irregularities in the advisory proceeding decided in final instance by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on January 27, 2010. In this regard, the requirement indicated in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention has been met.11 25. As the State mentioned, the decisions that, according to the Commission, exhausted the domestic remedies were adopted after the initial petition had been lodged. However, the Court notes that, by requiring that “admission by the Commission of a petition or communication [...] shall be subject to” the said exhaustion (underlining added), Article 46 of the American Convention, should be interpreted in the sense that exhaustion of the remedies is required when deciding on the admissibility of the petition and not when this is lodged. 26. The Court notes that the lodging of the petition, its notification to the State, and the issue of the Admissibility Report are three distinct occasions: the first derived from an act of the petitioner, and the other two arising from acts of the Inter-American Commission.12 The Inter-American Commission’s Rules of Procedure specifically regulate these stages.13 According to articles 28(h) (now 28(8), 29 and 30 of these Rules of Procedure, before forwarding a petition to the State, an initial processing is made during which the Commission analyzes, among other matters, whether the petition contains information on “any steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies, or the impossibility of doing so as provided in Article 31 of the [said] Rules of Procedure.” Once the petition has been forwarded to the State, the admissibility stage starts and, consequently, the adversarial proceedings on whether the petition meets the admissibility requirements, including the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. According to those Rules of Procedure, it is when examining admissibility that the Commission decides whether or not the petition complies with this requirement, or whether any of the exceptions established in the Convention are applicable. Thus, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure make a distinction between the time at which the initial processing is carried out, when it only examines whether the petition includes information on “any steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies, or the impossibility of doing so,” and the moment when it decides on admissibility, when it determines whether such remedies were exhausted, or applies an exception to this requirement. 11 Admissibility Report No. 151/10, Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, November 1, 2010 (evidence file, folio 1152). 12 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998, Series C No. 41, para. 54. See also: Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46.1, 46.2.a and 46.2.b, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, paras. 37 and 40. 13 During the processing of this case before the Commission, the Commission’s 2008 Rules of Procedure were in force when the initial petition was received, and the 2009 Rules of Procedure were in force at the admissibility stage (when the Admissibility Report was issued). The articles cited above were the same in both versions. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure were subsequently amended in 2011 and 2013, and the latter version is the one currently in force. The separation of the stages mentioned above has been maintained in all the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in force during the processing of this case before the inter-American system.