were available and adequate, suitable and effective. 18 Hence, it is not incumbent on either the Court or the Commission to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted. The Court emphasizes that it is not for the international organs to rectify the lack of precision in the State’s arguments. 19 B.1 Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the case of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías 25. In the case of Eduardo Landaeta the initial petition was lodged before the Commission on April 24, 2006, 20 and forwarded to the State on July 26, 2006, 21 when the Inter-American Commission granted the State two months to make the corresponding observations in relation to the admissibility stage of the petition. However, the State did not forward the requested observations, nor did it comment on the admissibility of the said petition, and the respective Admissibility Report was adopted on March 9, 2007. 26. The Court therefore considers that the State did not allege the failure to exhaust domestic remedies during the admissibility stage before the Commission. The Court notes that the briefs mentioned by the State (supra para. 17) which date from 2005, refer to the petition concerning Igmar Landaeta and not to the case of his brother, Eduardo Landaeta. The only briefs submitted to the Inter-American Commission by the Venezuelan State in relation to the petition of Eduardo Landaeta are dated March 12, 2008, 22 and November 25, 2009. 23 These briefs correspond to the merits stage before the Commission and, in them, the State merely described the status of the criminal proceedings in relation to his death. Accordingly, the Court notes that the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies was filed for the first time in the State’s answering brief before this Court, so that it is time-barred. Consequently, the preliminary objection filed by the State is rejected. B.2 Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the case of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías 27. The Court notes that, in the case of Igmar Landaeta, the initial petition was lodged before the Commission on September 20, 2004, 24 and was forwarded to the State on December 8 that year under cover of a letter dated December 1, 2004, 25 in order to receive the corresponding observations at the admissibility stage. Thus, the Venezuelan State filed the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies in its brief of March 8, 2005; in other words, at the appropriate time during the admissibility stage of the petition before the Commission. 26 In that brief, the State indicated that “[…] at the 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, paras. 88 and 91, and Case of Brewer Carías, supra, para. 84. 19 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra, para. 23, and Case of Brewer Carías, supra, para. 84. 20 Cf. Initial petition lodged before the Commission on April 24, 2006 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folios 1949 to 1997). 21 Cf. Communication of the Inter-American Commission of July 26, 2006 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folio 1945). 22 Cf. Observations on the merits presented by the Venezuelan State on March 12, 2008 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folios 1832 to 1835). 23 Cf. Observations on the merits presented by the Venezuelan State on November 25, 2009 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folios 2213 to 2231). 24 Cf. Initial petition lodged before the Commission on September 20, 2004 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folio 2574). 25 Cf. Communication of the Inter-American Commission of December 1, 2004 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folio 2568). In Admissibility Report No. 22/09, the Commission indicated that the petition had been forwarded to the State on December 1, 2004 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folio 2305). 26 Cf. Observations of the State on Petition No. 908-04, Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías (file of the procedure before the Commission, folios 2544 to 2555). 9