Having understood the rules and regulations as examined above, we can now discuss herebelow the relevant facts involving the preliminary objection for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. A. The premises in the petition The petition is dated February 3, 2003 and was received by the Commission on the following February 19. The text first outlines the facts that gave rise to the petition, noting that, by judgment of the Supreme Court of Peru, the jurisdictional dispute between the military courts and the ordinary courts had been settled in favor of the military jurisdiction, and therefore, “… as this was a ruling by the Supreme Court, the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction have been exhausted.” It can be inferred from the summary that this statement was made in positive terms, that is, to affirm that the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction in the case at hand had in fact been exhausted, thus meeting the requirements. It should likewise be emphasized that, as a natural consequence, the petition makes no mention of any situation that, in the instant case, would justify the claim that this compliance was not appropriate or mandatory. Finally, it should be understood that the case file shows no evidence that either the Commission or the Executive Secretariat on behalf of the Commission raised any objections to the petition. B. The content of the State’s comments The State submitted its observations on the petition on December 1, 2003. It said, “on August 16, 2003, the Transitory Criminal Law Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled on a jurisdictional dispute in favor of the military courts, holding that they should continue with their preliminary investigations and that the Third Special Criminal Chamber should accordingly send the investigative prosecutor of the Supreme Council of Military Justice a certified copy of all its actions in the investigation against” the named individuals, “ORDERING it to continue the investigation of the accused,” whom it then names. It also lists the judicial processes undertaken in the military jurisdiction on November 3 and December 1, 2003. The State’s brief closes by saying that “because a criminal process is still pending in the domestic jurisdiction and therefore the relevant remedy has not been previously exhausted, the State of Peru requests the Honorable Commission to find petition 136/2003 inadmissible pursuant to Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention and Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission.” C. Analysis in the Admissibility Report The Commission issued its Admissibility Report on the petition on February 27, 2004, including a discussion of the comments made by the State. 13