50. The Court has indicated that Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes that, to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication lodged before the Commission in accordace with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 27 51. Therefore, during the admissibility stage of a case before the Commission, the State must specify clearly the remedies that, in its opinion, remain to be exhausted in order to safeguard the principle of procedural equality between the parties that should govern any proceeding before the inter-American system. 28 As the Court has established repeatedly, it is not the task of either the Court or the Commission to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted, because it is not incumbent on the international organs to rectify the lack of precision of the State’s arguments. 29 Furthermore, the arguments that give content to the preliminary objection filed by the State before the Commission at the admissibility stage should correspond to those submitted to the Court. 30 52. The Court notes that these requirements haves not been met in this case. In other words, the State has presented different arguments at the admissibility stage before the Commission and in the preliminary objection filed before the Court. 31 The Court also notes that, in its first communication to the Commission, the State did not file this objection and its submission to the Court is time-barred. 53. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the objection filed by the State considering it inadmissible. D. Failure to comply with the time limit for lodging a petition before the Commission D.1. Arguments of the State, observations of the Commission and of the representatives 54. The State indicated that the American Convention established that the petition must be lodged before the Commission six months after the exhaustion of the domestic remedies. Exceptionally, when this time limit is not applicable, the petition must be lodged within a reasonable time. Brazil argued that, in this case, the reasonable time was not observed or, subsidiarily, the period of six months, with regard to the presumed violations derived from the supposed lack of a criminal prosecution. 55. According to the State, in this case, the Commission applied the exception to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention, under the assumption that the Amnesty Law constituted a situation of absence of due process of law for the protection of the rights supposedly violated and, on this basis, then examined the reasonable time. The State argued that, at that point of the analysis of admissibility, the Commission had set to one side its examination of the main facts concerning the victim’s Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, para. 85, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 77. 27 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 28, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 78. 28 29 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 Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 78. 30 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 23, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 78. 31 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, para. 88. 13