-8due process. Therefore, not only had the appropriate remedies offered by Peruvian law been exhausted, but also, the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention on Human Rights was applicable, because due process of law had not been ensured.” Regarding the State’s argument that the extradition was still being processed, the representative argued that the decision of the Executive Branch had been pending “for more than four years,” so that there had been “an unjustified delay in the extradition decision.” B. Considerations of the Court 21. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that, in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication lodged before Inter-American Commission in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.7 Thus, the Court has affirmed that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the appropriate procedural moment; that is, during the admissibility procedure before the Commission.8 22. In this regard, it can be seen that, during the admissibility procedure before the Commission, the State argued, in communications received on May 1 and 15, August 13 and December 4, 2009, and January 11, March 1, July 16, August 20 and October 26, 2010, that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies had not been met, because decisions remained pending on the applications for habeas corpus filed by the representative.9 Therefore, the Court observes that this preliminary objection was filed at the appropriate procedural moment. 23. The Court notes that, basically, the State has submitted two arguments: (i) that, when the initial petition was lodged, domestic remedies had not been exhausted, and (ii) that, when taking its decision on admissibility, the Commission did not take into account that other applications for habeas corpus filed by the representative were being processed (supra para. 18). 24. On the first point, the Court notes that the initial petition was lodged before the Commission on March 27, 2009. On March 31 that year, the petition was forwarded to the State. Following numerous submissions of additional information by both parties, on November 1, 2010, the Commission issued the Admissibility Report.10 In this report, with regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission decided that: 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 48. 8 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 85, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 49. 9 Cf. The State’s brief of May 1 and 15, 2009, in which it referred to the application for habeas corpus filed on January 26, 2009 (evidence file, folio 668); the State’s brief of August 13, 2009, in which it referred to the application for habeas corpus filed on January 26, 2009 (evidence file, folio 575); the State’s brief of December 4, 2009, in which it referred to the application for habeas corpus filed on October 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 407 to 409); the State’s brief of January 11, 2010, in which it referred to the application for habeas corpus filed on October 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 482 to 484); the State’s brief of March 1, 2010, in which it referred to the applications for habeas corpus filed on October 12, 2009, and February 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1028 to 1030); the State’s brief of July 16, 2010, in which it referred to the applications for habeas corpus filed on January 26, 2009, October 12, 2009, and February 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 844 to 851); the State’s brief of August 20, 2010, in which it referred to the application for habeas corpus filed on February 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 773 to 778), and the State’s brief of October 26, 2010, in which it referred to the applications for habeas corpus filed on January 26, 2009, October 12, 2009, and February 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1189 to 1193). 10 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 151/10, Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, November 1, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1145 to 1155).